Full text of "Epiphanius Panarion Bks II & III"

See other formats

Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79

The Panarion of
Epiphanius of
Salamis, Books II
and III. De Fide

Second , revised edition

Translated by

Frank Williams

BRII.I.

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis
Books II and III. De Fide

Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies

Editors

Johannes van Oort & Einar Thomassen

Editorial Board

J.D. BeDuhn, A.D. DeConick, W.-P. Funk
I. Gardner, S.N.C. Lieu, A. Maqanen
P. Nagel, L. Painchaud, B.A. Pearson
N.A. Pedersen, S.G. Richter, J.M. Robinson
M. Scopello, J.D. Turner, G. Wurst

VOLUME 79

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/nhms

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis
Books II and III. De Fide

Second, revised edition

Translated, by

Frank Williams

y' _ S

‘ / 6 8 * ‘

BRILL

LEIDEN . BOSTON
2013

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Epiphanius, Saint, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, approximately 310-403.

[De fide. English]

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Books II and III, De fide / translated by
Frank Williams. — Second, revised edition.

pages cm. — (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies ; volume 79)

Includes index.

ISBN 978-90-04-22841-2 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-23312-6 (e-book)

1. Christian heresies — Early works to 1800. 2. Apologetics — Early works to 1800. I. Title.

BR65.E653P36513 2012
273'-4 — dc23

2012031957

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual "Brill’’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 0929-2470

ISBN 978-90-04-22841-2 (hardback)

ISBN 978-90-04-23312-6 (e-book)

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,

IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,

222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

(Most sections of the work are titled as in the manuscripts. Modern titles are indicated
with an asterisk.)

Acknowledgments vii

Translator’s Introduction ix

Abbreviations xiii

Works Cited xvii

*Anacephalaeosis IV 1

47. Against Encratites 3

48. Against those who are called Phrygians or Montanists 6

49. Against Quintillianists or Pepuzians 22

50. Against Quartodecimans 24

51. Against the sect which does not accept the Gospel according

to John, or his Revelation 26

52. Against Adamians 68

53. Against Sampsaeans 7 1

54. Against Theodotians 73

55. Against Melchizidekians 78

56. Against Bardesianists 88

57. Against Noetians 91

58. Against Valesians 100

59. Against the impure “Purists” (Cathari) 104

60. Against Angelics 115

61. Against Apostolics 116

62. Against Sabellians 123

63. Against the first type of Origenist, who are shameful

as well 130

64. Against Origen, also called Adamantius 134

CONTENTS

*Anacephalaeosis V 215

65. Against Paul the Samosatian 216

66. Against Manichaeans 226

67. Against Hieracites 316

68. Against the schism of Melitius the Egyptian 324

69. Against the Arian Nuts 333

*Anacephalaeosis VI 411

70. On the schism of the Audians 412

71. Against Photinians 428

72. Against Marcellians 433

73. Against Semi-Arians 443

74. Against Pneumatomachi 483

75. Against Aerius 504

76. Against Anomoeans 511

*Anacephalaeosis VII 581

77. Against Dimoerites, called Apollinarians by some 582

78. Against Antidicomarians 616

79. Against Collyridians 637

80. Against Massalians 646

*De Fide 655

Index

683

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I need to thank my daughter Marge, who scanned the book from which
I worked; Mattie Kuiper, Tessel Jonquiere, Wilma de Weert and Rizalyn
Rafael of Brill for their patience and help; Dr. Hans van Oort for his valuable
suggestions; my indexer Dan Connolly and especially my wife Charlotte,
for her considerable technical help and for the constant encouragement
which is much needed in a work of this sort

TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

Here, in response to numerous requests, is our revised version of Books
II and III of the Panarion along with De Fide, Epiphanius’ summary of the
catholic faith as he understood it.

A great deal need not be said by way of introduction. The text from
which this is made is again Holl’s, with notes completed after his death
by his grateful pupil Hans Lietzmann. We have used Dummer’s reedition,
which includes various suggestions for the improvement of Holl’s text. For
Epiphanius’ life and work and our defense of him, the reader is referred to
the introduction to our Book I, the second edition, Brill, 2007. The style of
Books II and III is perhaps marginally better than that of Book I; Epipha-
nius quotes a number of better educated authors, some of his own writing
is formal, and he is discussing contemporary controversies with which he
was involved. However, the same criticisms which apply to the rest of the
Panarion, apply here.

The content is of particular interest to the patrologist, church historian,
theologian, student of Gnosticism or Manichaeism, and the Christian with
theological interests, because it represents the Christian fourth century
as described by an active participant. Politically the church was trium-
phant and exercised considerable control over the lives of its people. The
monastic movement was new, on the rise and very important. Internally,
however, the church seethed with controversy, deathly serious, with all
parties convinced that the right answer was available in an infallible, self-
interpreting scripture, and that one’s eternal salvation depended upon
understanding it.

Because Epiphanius was on the winning side we have the Panarion
entire. Its comprehensiveness undoubtedly made it an important weapon
for the group which gained control of the church.

As the years between 325 and 381 were crucial to the Arian problem
which the Council of Nicaea had failed to settle, this is given significant
space in the Panarion’s Books II and III. Five long Sects — or eight if
we count the brief notices of Theodotianists, Sabellians and Noetians —
deal with some aspect of it, a total of 122 pages out of 682. Three Sects
deal with the date of Easter — again, this was dealt with at Nicaea 1 but the

1 See Eusebius’ fragmentary De Pascha, PG 24, 643ft., translated in Strobel pp. 24-25.

TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

compromise it reached may not have been fully adopted when Epipha-
nius wrote. Other topics prominent in the Panarion are the divinity and
personality of the Holy Spirit, celibacy, Mary’s perpetual virginity and the
resurrection of the body. All these were hot issues in Epiphanius’ time and
account roughly for four fifths of Books II and III.

The longest Sect is Epiphanius’ attack on the Manichaeans, in his day
active and a serious competitor of the church. Its length, however, is due
in part to his fictitious biography of Mani, in part to his paraphrase of
and partial quotation from the Acta Archelal disputationis cum Manete
disputantis.

The quotation of other works is an important feature of the Panarion.
There were several in Book I; in Books II and III there are no less than
fourteen, many not available elsewhere. In addition there are two self-
quotations: a long passage from the Ancoratus and Epiphanius’ Letter to
Arabia about Mary.

As to his refutations of the various sects, Epiphanius takes these where
he finds them. Sometimes we know the source: his reply to Noetus comes
from Hippolytus, his strictures against the Phrygians from one of several
possible sources. His own are not bad. His voice is most recognizable,
either in arguments drawn from simple commonsense — as when he asks
how Mani’s archons can lock the soul in the prison of the body after eat-
ing it — or in his dealings with scripture. These latter can be impressive.
His answers to Arius’ arguments — barring a few forced explanations — are
quite effective. Even his refutation of Aetius’ Treatise on the Ingenerate
and Generate, though it makes no real attempt to take issue with the dia-
lectic, is a reasonable Christian response.

Also of interest is the picture Epiphanius incidentally gives of the first
century church. It is interesting and important to know how Holy Week
was kept, how a monk dressed, the not entirely successful attempts to
enforce clerical celibacy, the severe regulations concerning fasting. Only
Epiphanius explains why a priest should wear a beard, or gives the names,
not of all but of several of the parish churches in Alexandria. To him also
we owe descriptions of some of the pagan celebrations he abhorred.

While, read through, the Panarion is monotonous and repetitious, some
passages show real imagination. Thus, at the conclusion of his condem-
nation of the Cathari, Epiphanius, not unsympathetically, portrays the
position of the sectarian: “It is < as though > one found a break in a wall
beside a highway, thought of going through it, left the road and turned off
< there >, in the belief that a place where he could turn and pick up the
road again was right close by. But he did not know that the wall was very

TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

high and ran on for a long way; (3) he kept running into it and not find-
ing a place to get out, and in fact went for more than a signpost, or mile,
further without reaching the road. And so he would turn and keep going,
tiring himself out and finding no way to get back to his route; and perhaps
he could never find one unless he went back to the place where he had
come in (44,12,2-3).” Epiphanius would have been an effective preacher.

This revision has been concerned chiefly with the translation and index.
The translation has been carefully reviewed, its errors corrected, and it has
been tightened in the sense of being made more literal — not, we hope, at
the expense of readability. The notes have been enlarged, by adding a few
more lemmata, but chiefly by increasing the number of entries. As to the
notes themselves, these have only been minimally changed. Errors have
been corrected, a few more recent editions have been used, and the bib-
liography slightly updated. However considerations of time preclude any
thorough revision of the notes.

Although great care has been taken, there will still be errors; the trans-
lator apologizes for them. Experience has proved this translation helpful
to many. We hope it will continue to be so in the future.

Frank Williams
Las Cruces, New Mexico
October 10, 2011

ABBREVIATIONS

Act. Arch.

Act. Perpet.

A-F

Alex. Lycop.

Anc.

APAW

Apol. Ep. Dion.

App.

Asc. Isa.

Ath.

Ap. De Fuga
Ap. Sec.

C. Apol.

De Sent. Dion
Dial. II Trin.

Ep. Ad Serap
Nic.

Or. I C. Ar.

Or. II C. Ar.

Or. Ill C. Ar.

Syn.

Aug.

Adim.

C. Fel.

C. Fort.

Mor. Man.

Serm. Dom. Mont.
Ut. Cred.

Athen, Leg.

Bas. Caes.

BSOAS

Chrys.

Comment in Isa.
De Melch.

Acta Arckelai cum Manete Disputantis

Acta Perpetuae

Achelis-Flemming

Alexander of Lycop olis

Ancoratus

Abhandlungen der KonigLicken Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin
Apollinaris Epistula ad Dionysium
Appendix
Ascension of Isaiah.

Athanasius

Apologia de Fuga
Apologia Secunda
Contra Apollinarem
De Sententiis Dionysii
Dialogus Secundus De Trinitate
Epistula ad Serapionem de Morte Arii
De Decretis Nicaeae Synodis
Oratio I contra Arianos
Oratio II contra Arianos
Oratio III contra Arianos
De Synodis
Augustine

Contra Adimantum
Contra Felicem
Contra Fortunatum
De Moribus . . . Manichaeorum
De Sermone Domini in Monte
De Utilitate Credendi
Athenagoras Legatio
Basil of Caesarea

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies, London

Chrysostom

Commentaria in Isaiam
De Melchizedek

XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

Horn. 6 In Heb.

In Gen. Sermo
Clem. Alex.

Paedag.

Strom.

Theod.

CMC

Const. Ap.

Consularia Constantia
Cyr. Cat.

Cyr. Alex
Glaph. in Gen.

Dial. Mont. Orth.

Didasc.

Did. Trin.

Epiph.

Ep.

Ep. Barn.

Eus.

Dem. Ev.

H. E.

Praep. Ev.

Vit. Const.

Filast. Haer.

Gel.

Greg. Naz.

Carm. Hist. I De Se Ipso
C. Eunom.

Herm. Mand.

Hipp.

C. Noet.

Haer.

In Dan.

Synt.

Hist. Aceph.

Hist. Laus.

HRII

Iren. Haer.
Jer.

HomUia in Hebraeos
In Genesim

Clement of Alexandria
Paedagogus
Stromateis
Ex Theodoto
Cologne Mani Codex
Constitutiones Apostolorum
Consularia Constantia
Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures
Cyril of Alexandria
Glaphyra in Genesim
Dialogus Montanistae cum Orthodoxo
Didascalia

Didymus De Trinitate

Epiphanius

Epistula

Epistle of Barnabas
Eusebius

Demonstratio Evangelica
Historia Ecclesiastica
Praeparatio Evangelica
Vita Constantini

Filastrius Contra Omnes Haereses
Gelasius

Gregory Nazianzus

Carmen Historica I de Se Ipso
Contra Eunomium
Hermas Mandata
Hippolytus

Contra Noetum
Contra Omnes Haereses
Commentaria in Danielem
Syntagma
Historia Acephala
Historia Lausiaca

F. W. K. Muller, Handschriften-Reste in
Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan, Anhang
APAW, 1904

Irenaeus Contra Omnes Haereses
Jerome

ABBREVIATIONS

Adv. Jov.
Chron.

Com. In Isa.
C. Rufin.

In Tit.

Vir. 111.

Jos.

Ant.

C. Ap.

Jub.

Jul. Af.

Keph.

Lact. Div. Inst.
Man. Horn.
Man. Ps.

Marc. Anc. Inc.
MHG

MMH

NGWG

NHC

Apoc. Adam
Apoc. Jas.
Apocry. John
Gosp. Tr.

Gr. Pow.
Melch.

Nat. Arch.
Orig. Wld.
Testim. Tr.
Tri. Prot.

Nic. H. E.

Orig.

Cels.

Com. in Joh.
Com. In Mat.
Princ.

Pan.

Adversus Jovinianum
Chronicle

Commentaria in Isaiam
Contra Rufinum
Commentaria in Titum
De Vir is Illus tribus
Josephus

Antiquitates Judaicae
Contra Apionem
Book of Jubilees
Julius Africanus
Kephalaia

Lactantius Divinae Institutiones

Manichaean Homilies

Manichaean Psalms

Marcellus of Ancyra De Incarnatione

Monumenta Historiae Germanica, Auctores

Antiquissimi

F. C. Andres, W. Henning, Mitteliranische
Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan, APAW 1932 ,
i933> 1934

Nachrichten von der Gesellschajt der Wissenschajt zu
Gottingen

Nag Hammadi Corpus
Apocalypse of Adam
Apocryphon of James
Apocryphon of John
Gospel of Truth
Concept of Our Great Power
Melchizedek
Nature of the Archons
Origin of the World
Testimony of Truth
Trimorphic Protennoia
Nicephorus Historia Ecclesiastica
Origen

Contra Celsum
Commentaria in Johannem
Commentaria in Matthaeum
De Principiis
Panarion

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

Migne Patrologia Graeca

Philost.

Philostratus

Migne Patrologia Latina

Pistis Sophia

Ps.-Ath.

Pseudo-Athanasius

C. Apollin.

Contra Apollinarem

Haer.

Contra Omnes Haereses

PsT

Pseudo-Tertullian

Serap. Thm.

Serapion of Thmuis

Soc.

Socrates

Soz.

Sozomen Historia Ecclesiastica

SPAW

Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin

S-S

Stewart-Sykes

Tert.

Tertullian

Adv. Hermog.

Adversus Hermogenem

Adv. Marc.

Adversus Marcionem

Adv. Prax.

Adversus Praxean

Adv. Hermog.

Adversus Hermogenem

Adv. Jud.

Adversus Judaeos

Carn. Res.

De Carnis Resurrectione

Jejun.

De Jejunia

Monog.

De Monogamia

Pudic.

De Pudicitia

Virg. Vel.

De Virginibus Velandis

Theodoret Haer. Fab.

Theodoret Haereticorum Fabulae

Theophilus Ad. Autol.

Theophilus Ad Autolycum

Tit. Bost. Man.

Titus of Bostra Adversus Manichaeos

TPS

Transactions of the Philosophical Society, London

Talmud Babli

Trail.

Pseudo-Ignatius Epistula ad Trallianos

Vit. Epiph.

Vita Epiphanii

Sigla

<> enclose a conjectural reading placed in the text by Holl

<*> enclose a conjectural reading left in the apparatus by Holl

enclose words supplied by the translator for clarity
( ) enclose parenthetical material in Epiphanius
(i. e.) enclose translator’s explanatory note

WORKS CITED

Achelis, Hans and Flemming, Johannes, Die Syrische Didascalia iibersetzt und erklart,
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904

Allberry, C. R. C., A Manichaean Psalm Book, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1938
Amidon, Philip R., The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990

Asmussen, Jes P., Manichaean Literature, Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints,
1975

Brightman, Frank Edward, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Volume I, Eastern, Oxford: Clar-
endon Press, 1965

Charlesworth, James S., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
and Company, 1983

Corssen, Peter, Monarc hianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896
Dechow, Jon, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the
Legacy of Origen, Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1988
Dummer, Jurgen: “Die Epiphanius-Ausgabe der Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller,”
Texte und Textkritik, ed. Jurgen Dummer with Johannes Irmscher, Franz Paschalis, Kurt
Treu, pp. 119-125

Drexl, Fr.: Review: Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, hrsg. Von Karl Holl 3 Bd.: Panar-
ion Haer. 65-80. De Fide. [Die griech-christl Schriftst der ersten drei Jahrh., 37 Bd.]
Leipzig: Hinrichs 1933

Field, Frederick, Origenis Hexaplas quae Supersunt, Holdesheim: G. Olms, 1964
Fliigel, Gustav, Mani Seine Lehre und seine Schriften: sein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Manichaismus aus dem Fihrist des Abu’l Farasch Muhammed ben Lshak al-Warrah, Rep.
Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1969

Gardner, Lain, The Kephataia of the Teacher, Leiden: Brill, 1995

Hahn, August, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, Breslau:
E. Morgenstern, 1897

Helm, August, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956

Hennecke, Edgar, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. A. J. H.

Higgins and others, London: Lutterworth Press, 1963
Holl, Karl, Epiphanius LI: Panarion haer. 34-64, rev. ed. Jurgen Dummer, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1980

Holl, Karl, Epiphanius III: haer. 65-80, De Fide, rev. ed. Jurgen Dummer, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1985

Hormann, Josef, “Gegen die Antidikomarianiten,” Des heiligen Epiphanius von Salamis aus-
gewahlte Schriften, Kempten und Miinchen: Verlag der Jos. Koselschen Buchhandlung,
1919, pp. 233-263

Klimkeit, Hans-J., Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Parables, Hymns & Prayers from Central
Asia, San Francisco CA: Harper, 1993

Labriolle, Pierre, Les Sources de I’Histoire du Montanisme, repr. New York: AMS Press,
1980

Lietzmann, Hans, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904
Loofs, Friedrich, Paulus von Samosata, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924
Pagels, Elaine, Adam, Eve and the Serpent, New York: Doubleday, 1988
Polotsky, Hans Jacob, Manichaische Homilien, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1934
Reichardt, Walther, Die Briefe des Sextus Julius Africanus an Aristides und Origenes, Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1904

WORKS CITED

xviii

Riggi, C., “Nouvelle lecture du Panarion LIX (Epiphane et le divorce),” StucLia Patristica XII.
Papers presented to the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford,
lgy r, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Part I Berlin 1975 (TU 115) pp. 129-134
Routh, Martinus Josephus, Reliquiae Sacrae, Oxford: Oxford Press, 1846
Robertson, Archibald trans., “Ad Epictetum," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, IV pp. 570-574
Schmidt, Karl, Gesprache Jesu mitseinen Jiingem nach derAuferstehung, Hildesheim: Olms,
1967

Schwarz, Eduard, “Christliche und Jiidische Ostertafeln,” APAW 1905
Stewart-Sykes, The Didascalia Apostolorum: An English Version, Tumhout: Brepols, 2009
Strobel, August, Ursprung und Geschichte der fruhchristlichen Osterkalendar, Berlin:
Academie Verlag, 1971

Wickham, L. R., “The Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomoean,” JTS 19, 1968, pp. 532-569
Wolfsgruber, C., Des heiligen Epiphanius von Salamis ausgewdhlte Schriften, Kempten und
Miinchen: Verlag der Jos. Koselschen Buchhandlung, 1880

ANACEPHALAEOSIS IV

Here likewise are the contents of this first Section of Volume Two; counted
consecutively from the beginning of the sections it is Section Four. It con-
tains eighteen Sects:

47. Encratites, who are an offshoot of Tatian, reject marriage and say
that it is of Satan, and forbid the eating of any sort of meat.

48. Phrygians, also called Montanists and Tascodrugians. They accept
the Old and the New Testaments but, by boasting of a Montanus and a
Priscilla, introduce other prophets after the [canonical] prophets.

49. (1) Pepuzians, also called Quintillianists, with whom Artotyrites are
associated. They derive from the Phrygians but teach different doctrines.
They venerate Pepuza, a deserted city somewhere in Galatia, Cappadocia
and Phrygia, and regard this as Jerusalem. (There is another Pepuza as
well.) And they allow women to rule and to act as priests.

(2) Their initiation is the stabbing of a small child. And they tell the
story that Christ was revealed in female form to Quintilla, or Priscilla,
there in Pepuza.

(3) They likewise use the Old and the New Testaments, revising them
to suit their own taste.

50. Quartodecimans, who celebrate the Passover on one day of the
year, whichever day is the fourteenth of the month — whether on a Sab-
bath or a Lord’s Day — and both fast and hold a vigil on that day.

51. Alogi, or so I have named them, who reject the Gospel of John and
the eternal divine Word in it who has (come down) from on high, from
the Father, and so accept neither John’s Gospel itself, nor his Revelation.

52. (r) Adamians, by some called Adamizers, whose doctrine is not true
but ridiculous. (2) For they assemble stark naked, men and women alike,
and conduct their readings, prayers and everything else in that condition.
This is because they are supposedly single and continent and, since they
regard their church as Paradise, do not allow marriage.

53. Sampsaeans, also called Elkasaites, who live to this day in Arabia,
the country lying north of the Dead Sea. They have been deceived by
Elxai, a false prophet (2) whose descendants were Marthus and Marthana,
two women who are still worshipped as goddesses by the sect. All their
doctrines are quite like those of the Ebionites.

ANACEPHALAEOSIS IV

54. Theodotians, who derive from Theodotus the shoemaker, of Byzan-
tium. He excelled in the Greek education, but when he was arrested with
others during the persecution in his time, only he fell away. Because he
was reproached after the martyrdom of the others, to escape the charge
of denying God he thought of the expedient of calling Christ a mere man,
and taught in this vein.

55. Melchizedekians, who honor Melchizedek and claim he is a power
of some sort and not a mere man, and have dared to ascribe everything
to his name and say as much.

56. Bardesians. Bardesianes came from Mesopotamia. At first he was
a follower of the true faith and excelled in wisdom, but after he swerved
from the truth he taught like Valentinus, except for a few small points
< in > which he differs from Valentinus.

57. (1) Noetians. Noetus was from Smyrna in Asia. From conceit he
taught, among other things, that Christ is the Son-Father, 1 < and said >
that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same. (2) He also said
that he was Moses; his brother, he said, was Aaron.

58. (1) Valesians. They live, I believe, in the chief village of Philadelphia
in Arabia, Bacathus; they make eunuchs of all who happen by and accept
their hospitality. Most of them are castrated eunuchs themselves. (2) They
teach certain other things which are full of heresy, reject < the teachings >
of the Law and the Prophets, and introduce certain other obscenities.

59. Purists (Cathari), who are connected with Navatus of Rome, entirely
reject the twice-married, and do not accept repentance.

60. Angelics. These have entirely died out. Either they boasted of
angelic rank, or they 2 were called Angelics < because they worshipped* >
angels.

61. Apostolics, also called Apotactics. These too < live > in Pisidia; they
accept only persons who renounce the world, and they pray by them-
selves. They are quite like the Encratites, but have opinions which are
different from theirs.

62. Sabellians, whose opinions are like the Noetians’ except that they
deny that the Father has suffered.

63. Origenists, the disciples of one Origen. They are obscene, have
unspeakable practices, and devote their bodies to corruption.

1 uiot77iaTV)p.

2 Holl: irpoarovEiv <outup E7rex:Xr)0v)O'o:v>; MSS: 7rpoa7cexAv)a , 9ci[.

ENCRATITES

64. Other Origenists, the disciples of the Origen who is called Adaman-
tius the Author. They reject the resurrection of the dead, represent Christ
and the Holy Spirit as creatures, allegorize Paradise, the heavens and all
the rest, and foolishly say that Christ’s kingdom will come to an end.

These, in turn, are the eighteen Sects of Volume Two, Section One.

Against Encratites. 1 Number 47, but 67 of the series

1,1 Certain persons whom we call Encratites are the successors of Tatian.
They were led astray and deceived by Tatian in person, but have ideas dif-
ferent from his and in their own turn have devoted themselves to worse
foolishness. (2) Even today their numbers are increasing in Pisidia and
the land called Scorched Phrygia. 2 (Perhaps the country has come to be
called this by divine dispensation, for this very reason — its inhabitants
have been scorched by the perversity of such error, and so much of it. For
there are many sects in the area.)

1.3 There are also Encratites in Asia, Isauria, Pamphylia, Cilicia and
Galatia. And by now this sect < has > also < been planted > in Rome < to >
an extent, and at Antioch in Syria as well — not everywhere, however.

1.4 Encratites too say that there are certain sovereign authorities, 3 and
that the < power > of the devil is ranged against God’s creatures 4 because
the devil is not subject to God; he has power of his own and acts as in his
own right, and not as though he had fallen into perversity. 5 For they do
not agree with the church, but differ from its declaration of the truth.

1.5 As scriptures they use principally the so-called Acts of Andrew, and
of John, and of Thomas, and certain apocrypha, 6 and any sayings from the
Old Testament that they care to.

1 Epiphanius may have used Iren. Haer. 1.28.1, but dearly has contemporary knowl-
edge of the Encratites. Other ancient discussions are found at Hippol. Haer. 8.7; Eus. H. E.
4.28-30; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 2.2.33; Strom. 1.91.5; 3.76.25; 7.108.2. The apocryphal Acts of
John, Andrew and Thomas afford many instances of the sort of teachings described here.

2 Basil of Caesarea Ep. 188; 198; 236.

3 cipyai. Typically Gnostic terms for such beings are found at Acts of John 94; 95; 98-99;
Acts of Andrew 20; Acts of Thomas 27; 50; 121; 132; 133; 148.

4 “Let rulers be broken, let powers fall” is said of Satan’s host at Acts of John 114.

5 The apocryphal Acts represent the devil as a powerful, dangerous being at Acts of
Andrew 27; Acts of Thomas 31; 32; 34; 44; 76. At Acts of Thomas 31 the devil says, “The Son
of God hath wronged me against my will, and taken them that were his own from me.”

6 The Nag Hammadi tractate, Thomas the Contender (NHC II, 7) contains a sharp
polemic against sexual intercourse, but there is no evidence that the “Encratites,” as
described here, used it.

ENCRATITES

1.6 They declare that marriage is plainly the work of the devil 7 And
they regard meat as an abomination — though they do not prohibit it for
the sake of continence or as a pious practice, but from fear and for appear-
ance’ sake, and in order not to be condemned for eating flesh. 8

1.7 Encratites too celebrate mysteries with water. 9 They do not drink
wine at all, 10 and claim that it is of the devil, and that those who drink and
use it are malefactors and sinners. (8) And yet they believe in the resur-
rection of the dead — which goes to show that, for people who have gone
this far wrong, everything is crazy, (g) Indeed, a person with sense can see,
and wonder, and find himself nonplussed about everything the heretics
say and do, because none of their speech and behavior hangs together and
admits of any appearance of truth.

2,1 For if they use the Old and New Testaments, where are there any
different authorities? The two Testaments are in agreement about one
< authority > and proclaim the knowledge of < one Godhead >. (2) And if
there is a resurrection of the dead too, how can lawful wedlock be of the
devil? For God says, "Be fruitful and multiply;” * 11 and the Lord says, in the
Gospel, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” 12 And
the apostle says, “Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled.” 13

2,3 But when they are confronted with such arguments they malign
Paul by calling him a drunkard. 14 And they seize on certain texts against
wine drinkers which they go hunting for to suit their taste and support
their fiction, and say that anything like wine is of the devil. “Noah drank
wine,” they say, “and was stripped naked. (4) Lot got drunk, and unknow-
ingly lay with his own daughters. The calf was made during a drinking
bout. And the scripture says, ‘Who hath confusion? Who hath conten-
tions? Who hath resentments and gossip? Who hath afflictions without

7 Marriage is called “the work of the serpent” at Acts of Thomas 57. Condemnations of
matrimony are found in the apocryphal Acts, e.g. at Acts of John 63; 113; Acts of Andrew
28; 35; Acts of Thomas 12-16; 96-103; 131. Cf. Iren. Haer. 1.28.1; Hippol. Haer. 8.20.15; Clem.
Alex. Strom. 1.71.5; 2.46.3.

8 Iren Haer. 1.28.1; Hippol. Haer. 8.20.1; Basil of Caesarea Ep. 236,4.

9 Acts of Thomas 121. Cyprian of Carthage Ep. 63 is a tract against the practice, which
suggests that it sometimes occurred in catholic circles.

10 Hippol. Haer. 8.20.10; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 2.32.1-3; Basil of Caesarea Ep. 236,4.

11 Gen 1:28.

12 Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9.

13 Heb 13:4.

14 In his Prologue to the Epistle to Titus, Jerome says that “Tatian, the patriarch of the
Encratites” repudiated several of the Pauline Epistles.

ENCRATITES

cause? Whose eyes are inflamed? Is it not they that tarry long at wine, that
seek out the place where drinking is?’ ” 15

2,5 And they track down other texts of this kind and make a collec-
tion of them for the sake of their own credibility, without realizing that
all immoderation is in every way grievous, and declared to be outside of
the prescribed bounds. (6) For I would say this not merely of wine, but
of every form of intemperance. The Lord was teaching this lesson when
he said, “Let not your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunken-
ness and cares of this life.” 16 So was the text, “If thou be given to appe-
tite, be not desirous of a rich man’s meats, for these attend on a life of
deceit.” 17 (7) And further, when the holy apostle was ridding the church of
the intemperate and greedy he said, in anger at their gluttonous desires,
“Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both
it and them.” 18

2,8 Besides, Esau lost his birthright over a wheat mash — as the scrip-
ture says, calling the same thing a “wheat mash” and a “lentil mash.” 19
(I imagine it was not made of wheat — that is, not made of grain. I think
the scripture was probably describing the leftover lentils — which had
already been boiled, and which had been put back on the fire and heated
up again — as “< boiled > on the fire,” because they had been heated up
after cooling off. (g) And as Noah was stripped naked after using wine
but without coming to any harm, so Esau came to the harm of losing
his birthright, but from hunger and greed rather than from wine. And no
falsely applied text is of any avail when set beside the truth, nor is any
invention of dramatic fiction.

3,1 They pride themselves on supposed continence, but all their con-
duct is risky. For they are surrounded by women, deceive women in every
way, travel and eat with women and are served by them. For they are
outside of the truth, “having the form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof.” 20 (2) For if a person neglects any part of a work such as this,
through the one part which he neglects he has given up the whole of it.
And so it is that their mysteries are celebrated only with water, and are

15 Prov 23:29-30.

16 Luke 21:34.

17 Prov 23:3.

18 1 Cor 6:13.

19 Cf. LXX, confusing Gen 25:30 with 25:34. Epiphanius here takes mjpop, “wheat,” as the
genitive of 7tup, “fire.”

20 2 Tim 3:5.

MONTANISTS

not mysteries but false mysteries, celebrated in imitation of the true ones.
(3) ffence the Encratites will be defeated on this point too, by the plain
words of the Savior, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,
until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God.” 21

3,4 Disabling this sect in its turn with the mighty hand of the truth —
like a stinging insect deprived of teeth — let us go on to the rest, calling
on the God of all, as we always do, to be our guide and our defender
against horrors, and to be the help of our judgment as he is the giver of
our wisdom. May I thus learn the truth from him and be able to expose
the < nonsense* > of the others and, by the speech of the truth, make the
medicinal antidote for them from many fragrant herbs. May it be given
ungrudgingly: for healing, to those who have already contracted [the dis-
ease]; as a treatment, to whose who are coming down with it; as a preven-
tative, to those who are about to learn something they did not know; and
to myself, for God’s salvation and reward.

Against those who are catted Phrygians or Montanists * 1 or, also,
Tascodrugians. Number 28, but 48 of the series

r,r Out of these in turn there emerges another sect, called the sect of the
Phrygians. It originated at the same time as the Encratites, and is their suc-
cessor. (2) For the Montanists had their beginning about the nineteenth
year of Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius, 2 while Marcion, Tatian, and
the Encratites who succeeded him had theirs in Hadrian’s time and after
Hadrian.

r,3 These Phrygians too, as we call them, accept every scripture of the
Old and the New Testaments and likewise affirm the resurrection of the
dead. But they boast of having one Montanus as a prophet, and Priscilla
and Maximilla as prophetesses, and by paying heed to them have lost
their wits. (4) They agree with the holy catholic church about the Father,

21 Matt 26:29.

1 An important source for this sect is a well informed and early catholic refutation;
see Labriolle pp. L-LI. Other significant descriptions of the Montanists are found at Hipp.
Haer. 8.19; ro.25-28; Eus. H. E. 504-19; Jer. Ep. 41; PsT 47; Filast. Haer. 49; Cyr. Cat. 16.18;
Did. De Trin. 3.41, and the Montanist works of Tertullian. And see Labriolle’s entire collec-
tion. Since Filast. 49 closely resembles Epiphanius while PsT is quite different from both,
it is uncertain whether Epiphanius has made use of Hippol. Synt. here, or whether Filast.
depends upon Epiphanius.

2 I.e., 157 c. e. See Clem Alex. Strom. 3.106.4-5.

MONTANISTS

the Son and the Holy Spirit, 3 but have separated themselves by “giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” 4 and saying, “We must
receive the gifts of grace as well.”

1.5 God’s holy church also receives the gifts of grace — but the real gifts,
which have already been tried in God’s holy church through the Holy
Spirit, and by prophets and apostles, and the Lord himself. (6) For the
apostle John says in his Epistle, “Try the spirits, whether they be of God;” 5
and again, “Ye have heard that Antichrist cometh, and now many Anti-
christs have come. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if
they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but that it might
be made known that they were not of us. For this cause write I unto you,
little children,” 6 and so on. (7) The Phrygians are truly not “of” the saints
themselves. They “went out” by their contentiousness, and “gave heed” to
spirits of error and fictitious stories.

2,1 For see here, by their thesis itself they are convicted of inability to
keep their contentious promises. If we must receive gifts of grace, and
if there must be gifts of grace in the church, why do they have no more
prophets after Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla? 7 Has grace stopped
operating, then? Never fear, the grace in the holy church does not stop
working! (2) But if the prophets prophesied up until a certain point, and
no more < after that* >, then neither Priscilla nor Maximilla prophesied;
< they delivered their prophecies after > the ones which were tried by the
holy apostles, in the holy church.

2,3 Their stupidity will be refuted in two ways, then. Either they should
show that there are prophets after Maximilla, so that their so-called
“grace” will not be inoperative. Or Maximilla and her like will be proved
false prophets, since they dared to receive inspiration after the end of the
prophetic gifts — not from the Holy Spirit but from devils’ imposture —
and delude her audience.

3 Dial. Mont. Orth. The Montanist Tertullian detests monarchianism (Adv. Prax. 1.1-3;
5) and attributes his essentially catholic doctrine of the Trinity to the Paraclete (Adv. Prax.
2.1; 8.5). Montanists are, however, accused of monarchianism in the Dial. Mont. Orth. (Lab-
riolle pp. 92-98) and at Jer. Ep. 41.3; cf. Orig. Cels. 8.9; Hippol. Haer. 8.19.3. PsT 7.2 and Did.
Trin. 3.41.1 distinguish between Montanists who are monarchian and those who are not.

4 1 Tim 4:1. For the use of this text against Montanists cf. Hippol. In Dan. 3.20; Orig.
Comm. In Matt 15.30.

5 1 John 4:1.

6 Cf. 1 John 2:18-19.

7 So argued at Eus. H. E. 5.17.4 (anonymous anti-Montanist).

MONTANISTS

2,4 And see how they can be refuted from the very things they say!
Their so-called prophetess, Maximilla, says, “After me there will be no
prophet more, but the consummation.” (5) See here, the Holy Spirit and
the spirits of error are perfectly recognizable! Everything the prophets
have said, they also said rationally and with understanding; and the things
they said have come true and are still coming true. (6) But Maximilla said
that the consummation would come after her, and no consummation
has come yet — even after so many emperors, and such a lapse of time!
(7) There have been about 206 8 years from Maximilla’s time until ours,
the twelfth year of Valentinian and Valens and the < eighth > of Gratian, 9
and we have yet to see the consummation which was announced by this
woman who boasted of being a prophetess, but did not even know the
day of her own death.

2,8 And it is plain to see that none who have estranged themselves
from the truth have retained any soundness of reason. Like babes bitten
by the perennial deceiver, the serpent, they have surrendered themselves
to destruction and to being caught outside the fold and dragged off to be
the wolf’s meat < and > thus perish. This is because they did not hold on
to the Head but deserted the truth and hazarded themselves in shipwreck,
and in the surf of all sorts of error, (g) If Maximilla says there will never be
another prophet, she is denying that they have the gift, and that it is still
to be found among them. If their gift persists [only] until Maximilla, then,
as I said before, she had no portion of the gifts either. 10

3,1 For she has gone astray. The Lord has set his seal on the church,
and perfected the gifts of grace < in > her. When prophets were needed
the same saints, filled with the Holy Spirit, delivered all the prophecies for
our benefit * 11 — [delivered them] in the true Spirit, with sound mind and
rational intellect, in proportion to their < faith > in the gifts of grace the
Spirit was giving to each, and “in proportion to the faith.” 12 (2) But what
have these people said that was beneficial? What have they said that was
in proportion to the faith? Indeed, how can they be any but the persons
of whom the Lord said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves?” 13

8 Holl: a^; MSS: Siaxoaia evsvr)>covTa.

9 376 C. E. Epiph has been at work on the Panarion for about a year; cf. Proem 11.2.

10 So argued at Eus. H. E. 5.17.4 (anonymous anti-Montanist).

11 Cf. 1 Cor 12:7.

12 Cf. Rom 12:6.

13 Matt 7:15.

MONTANISTS

3,3 By comparing what they have said with < the teachings > of the
Old and New Testaments — which are true, and which have been delivered
and prophesied in truth — let us determine which is < really > prophecy,
and which false prophecy. (4) A prophet always spoke with composure and
understanding, and delivered his oracles by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. 14
He said everything with a sound mind like “Moses, the servant of God and
faithful in all his house, who saw the glory of God < apparently, and not
in dark speeches.” 15 And thus the man who saw* > was called a prophet
in the Old Testament. (5) Scripture says, “The vision which Isaiah the son
of Amoz, the prophet, saw: 16 / saw < the > Lord sitting upon a throne high
and lifted up. And I saw Seraphim and Cherubim, and I heard the Lord
saying unto me, Go and tell this people, Hear indeed and ye shall not
understand; and see indeed, and ye shall not perceive.” 17 And after hear-
ing this from the Lord he went to the people and said, “Thus saith the
Lord.” (6) Can’t you see that this is the speech of a sober person who is
not out of his senses, and that the words were not delivered as the speech
of a mind distraught?

3,7 Similarly, when the prophet Ezekiel heard the Lord say, “Bake
thee bread on human dung,” 18 he said, “Not so, Lord; nothing common
or unclean hath at any time come into my mouth.” 19 (8) Understanding
that which had been threateningly said to him by the Lord, he did not go
ahead and do [it] as though he were out of his senses. Since his mind was
sound and rational he prayed and said, “Not so, Lord.” These — both the
teaching and the discussion — are marks of < the > true prophets, whose
minds are sound in the Holy Spirit.

3,9 And who can deny that Daniel was filled with all wisdom and in
possession of his senses? He found the answers to Nebuchadnezzar’s
riddles, (ro) recalled Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams when they had eluded
even the dreamer, and with his soundness of mind and the superiority
of his gift, gave the explanation at once. For he had wisdom greater than
everyone’s by the gift of the Holy Spirit, who truly gives wisdom — to the

14 Eus. H. E. 5.17.2-3 (anonymous anti-Montanist): But the false prophet prophesies in
ecstasy . . . They cannot show that any of the truly inspired prophets in the Old or the New
Testament was of this sort. . .

15 Num 12:7-8.

16 Isa 1:1.

17 Cf. Isa 6:1-3; 9.

18 Ezek 4:12.

19 Ezek 4:14.

MONTANISTS

prophet and to those who, through the prophet, are vouchsafed the teach-
ing of the truth.

3,11 But when the Phrygians profess to prophesy, it is plain that they
are not sound of mind and rational. Their words are ambiguous and odd,
with nothing right about them. (4,1) Montanus, for instance, says, "Lo, the
man is as a lyre, and I fly over him as a pick. The man sleepeth, while I
watch. Lo, it is the Lord that distracteth the hearts of men, and that giveth
the heart to man.” 20

4,2 Now what rational person who receives the “profitable” message
with understanding and cares for his salvation, can fail to despise a
false religion like this, and the speech of someone who boasts of being a
prophet but cannot talk like a prophet? (3) For the Holy Spirit never spoke
in him. Such expressions as “I fly,” and “strike,” and “watch,” and “The Lord
distracteth men’s hearts,” are the utterances of an ecstatic. They are not
the words of a rational man, but of someone of a different stamp from the
Holy Spirit who spoke in the prophets.

4,4 When the Phrygians are undertaking to combine falsehood with
truth and rob of their intelligence persons who care for accuracy, they pile
up 21 texts to make a false case for their imposture, and < to prove their lies
from them* >, say that certain scriptures bear a resemblance to it. < For
instance >, the holy scripture has said, “God sent an ‘ecstasy’ upon Adam,
and he slept.” 22

But Adam’s case was nothing like theirs. (5) In their case God did not
mean to fashion a body — his reason for putting Adam into a trance —
and, of his extreme lovingkindness, give them a similar experience.
(6) God brought the unconsciousness of sleep upon Adam, not distraction
of mind.

There are many different forms of ecstasy. We call stupefaction from
excess of wonder an ecstasy; and madness is called ecstasy because it is
out of touch with reality. (7) But Adam’s “ecstasy” of sleep was so called in
a different sense, one related to the activity of his body, especially because
the holy Adam whom God’s hand had fashioned was cast into a very deep
trance.

20 Tertullian maintains that a prophet loses his senses because he is overshadowed by
the power of God, and cannot know what he has said, Adv. Marc. 4.22.4-5. At Adv. Marc.
4.22.1; 5.8.12 he equates ecstasy with amentia.

21 Reading emo'wpEuoucn <te> X6you? with the omission of the te.

22 LXX Gen 2:21. Tertullian, who regards dreams as a kind of madness, explains Adam’s
“ecstasy" similarly at De Anima 45.1-6; 23.

MONTANISTS

5.1 For it is indeed plain that the sacred scripture was right to call this
ecstasy. When someone is asleep, all his senses leave him and take a rest.
Though the sense of sight is there, for example, it does not see; the eye is
closed, and the mover in the man, the spirit or soul, is at rest. (2) If there
is an unpleasant odor in the house or even a pleasant one, the sense of
smell is there but does not perceive the odor; this sense has gone off to
take a rest. (3) If there are bitter, or salty or sweet fluids in the mouth, the
sense of taste does not perceive them; it lies in the ecstasy of rest without
doing what it did in the man when he was awake.

5,4 The ear is there, but the hearing is not functioning as a sense. And
if people are talking in the house it often does not hear what anyone says
unless the man wakes up; for the time being, its function is suspended.
(5) Creatures can be crawling on our bodies, but we do not feel their touch
on our bodies unless their onslaught is severe; the whole body has aban-
doned its activity for the rest of sleep.

5,6 For the body is made of earth and envelops the soul, and since God
made it serviceable to us in this way, it is allowed a time of withdrawal
from its full sensation to a state of rest. The soul itself does not abandon
its function of governance or thought. (7) It often imagines and sees itself
as though it were awake, and walks around, does work, crosses the sea,
addresses crowds — and sees itself in more situations, and more striking
ones, in its dreams. 23 (8) But it is not like a madman, or an ecstatic in a
transport. He takes frightful things in hand while awake in body and soul,
and often does grievous harm to himself and his neighbors. He does not
know what he is saying and doing, for he has fallen into the ecstasy of
folly.

6.1 Beloved, I have needed to gather all this material < about > the
various kinds of ecstasy because of the text, “The Lord sent an ecstasy
upon Adam, and he slept.” 24 (2) And I have explained why going to sleep
is called an “ecstasy from the Lord” in that passage. It is because of the
compassion and lovingkindess God has granted to all, so that one may be
removed from care and the business of living to the rest of sleep. (3) In
Adam’s case, however, God further called it ecstasy because it made him
insensitive to pain for a time, because of the side God meant to take from
him and make into his wife.

23 Cf. Tertullian’s description of dreams at De Anima 45; dreams, while a form of mad-
ness, are healthy and natural.

24 Gen 2:21.

MONTANISTS

6,4 But Adam’s senses and wits were not in abeyance. He recognized
Eve as soon as he awoke, and said, “This is now bone of my bone and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘wife,’ for she was taken out of her
husband.” 25 (5) And as you see, he was aware of the past and the present,
and made a prophecy of the future. Look here, by saying “bone of my
bone” he took notice of what had happened while he was asleep. And he
was aware of the present; after his wife had been made he was aware that
she had been taken from < his > body. (6) And of the future he proph-
esied, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall
cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” 26 These are not the
words of a man in an ecstasy or without understanding, but of a person
of sound mind.

7,1 But if I also have to speak of “I said in my ecstasy, all men are liars,” 27
the meaning of this, again, is different. These are not the words of a mad-
man and an ecstatic < as the Phrygians claim* > — far from it! — (2) but of
someone who is very surprised, and is taking more notice than usual < of >
things that are < not > fit to be said and done. For since the prophet was
astonished, he also speaks with astonishment here.

7,3 The prophets fell into trances, < but* > not into distraction. Peter
too was in an “ecstasy,” 28 not because he was irrational but because
he saw things other than what men usually see in the everyday world.

(4) “For he saw a sheet let down, bound at the four corners, and in it all
manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things and birds of the air.” 29

(5) Observe that St. Peter was rational, and not out of his mind. For when
he heard < the words >, “Arise, kill and eat,” 30 he did not obey like a per-
son of unsound mind, but told the Lord, “Not so, Lord; nothing common
or unclean hath at any time come into my mouth.” 31

7,6 And the holy David said, “, all men are liars.” 32 In saying,
“I said,” he was speaking for himself, and saying that people lie. Thus he was
not lying — but he expressed great astonishment because he was amazed

25 Gen 2:23.

26 Gen 2:24.

27 Ps 115:2.

28 Didymus at Comm. In Acts 10:10 (Labriolle p. 162). Tertullian insists at C. Marc.
4.22.4-5 that Peter’s recognition of Moses and Elijah could have taken place only in a
state of ecstasy.

29 Acts 10:11-12.

30 Acts 10:13.

31 Cf. Acts 10:14.

32 Ps 05:2.

MONTANISTS

and astounded at God’s lovingkindness and the things the Lord had told
him. (7) And, seeing that everyone is in need of God’s mercy, he ascribed
truth-telling to the Lord alone, and realized that every human being is
deserving of punishment — thus evidencing the true Spirit, who spoke
in the prophets and revealed to them the depths of the exact knowledge
of God.

7,8 Abraham too fell into ecstasy — not the abeyance of his wits but the
distraction of fear. He saw the furnace and the torches about sundown
< and was afraid, as* > other prophets said when they saw visions in their
right minds, (g) Moses, for example, said, “I fear exceedingly and quake.” 33
But Abraham knew what the Lord was saying, for < scripture says >, “Thou
shalt know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger 400 years in a land
that is not theirs.” 34 (10) And you see how plain it is that everything was
said in truth by the prophets with sound mind and sober reason, and not
in madness.

8,1 But even though they choose to reply, “The former gifts are not
like the latter,” 35 how can they prove it? The holy prophets and the holy
apostles prophesied alike. (2) In the first place, those who saw the two
men in white when the Savior ascended into heaven did not see them in
derangement, but with sound minds heard [them say], “Ye men of Galilee,
why stand ye gazing up unto heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up
from you into heaven, shall so come,” 36 and so on. (3) And then, as I said,
Peter was in his right mind when he saw, heard, and gave his answer, and
said, “Not so, Lord.” 37

8,4 Agabus spoke prophetically and hinted at his meaning with an
unusual gesture, when he took Paul’s girdle, bound his own feet, and said,
“He whose girdle this is, him shall they bind and carry to Jerusalem.” 38
(5) And in turn, prophets came down to Antioch and declared that there
would be a world-wide famine, and their prediction did not fail; to show
that they were true prophets, the scripture adds at once, “Which thing
came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” 39

33 Deut 9:19; Heb 12:21.

34 Gen 15:13.

35 Tertullian says that the Paraclete’s instructions are novelties of discipline but not of
doctrine, Monog. 3.8; 9; Virg. Vel. 1.2-4.

36 Acts 1:11.

37 Acts 10:14.

38 Acts 21:11.

39 Acts 21:11.

MONTANISTS

8,6 And the most holy apostle Paul prophesied, “Now the Spirit saith
expressly that in the last days harsh times shall come,” 40 and so on.

(7) And again, in another place, “Some shall fall away from sound doc-
trine, giving heed to seducing < spirits > and doctrines of devils, forbid-
ding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be partaken of by us < who receive them > with thanksgiving.” 41

(8) The material before this < will > itself < make it plain > that < this > has
clearly come true, in you and in others like you. Most of these sects forbid
marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods, though they do not do this
for discipline’s sake or for greater virtue with its rewards and crowns, but
because they regard these creatures of the Lord as abominations.

g,i Now the holy catholic church reveres virginity, monogamy and
purity, commends widowhood, and honors and accepts lawful wedlock;
but it forbids fornication, adultery and unchastity. (2) This will show the
character of the holy catholic church and the false customs of the others —
[show], < likewise >, who has seen fit to avoid every imposture, crooked
path and uphill track. (3) For I have said before — as has just been said
by the most holy apostle and I shall now repeat — that it was to make us
secure and distinguish the character of the holy catholic church from the
imposture of the sects, that Paul said how arrogantly the sects which for-
bid matrimony and prescribe abstinence from foods prohibit God’s good
ordinances by law.

9,4 For it was < with > a certain fitness that the divine Word said, “Wilt
thou be perfect?” 42 in the Gospel. Although he makes allowances for
human clay and its frailty, he rejoices in those who can show the marks
of piety and choose to practice virginity, purity and continence. Still, he
honors marriage to one spouse, (5) even though he prefigures the gifts of
the priesthood chiefly by means of persons who stayed continent after
one marriage, and persons who remained virgin, and his holy apostles
so established the canonical rule of the priesthood, with decency and
holiness. 43 (6) But if, from frailty, someone needs to contract a second
marriage after the death of his wife, the rule of the truth does not prohibit
this — that is, provided he is not a priest.

40 2 Tim 3:1.

41 1 Tim 4:1; 3.

42 Matt 10:21.

43 Didasc. 4, A-F p. 14.

MONTANISTS

But these people do forbid it — “forbidding to marry,” 44 as scripture
says. They expel anyone who has contracted a second marriage, and make
their rule against second marriage a matter of compulsion.

For our part, we lay necessity on no one. As a good counsel we urge
those who can [to follow this rule], but we lay no necessity on one who
cannot, and surely do not expel him from life. 45 (g) The holy word every-
where declared that we must bear with the frailty of the weak. We shall
find at once that, to shame people like these < who expel persons* > who
do not have the same gift as they, the holy apostle says, “Younger widows
refuse; (10) for after they wax wanton against Christ they will marry, hav-
ing condemnation because they have left their first faith.” 46 For widows
who have promised and broken their promise have condemnation, while
those who made no promise, but married from frailty, will not have con-
demnation. If they were to have condemnation, why did Paul say, “Let
them marry, guide the house.” 47

10,1 We find then that every prophet, whether in the Old Testament
or in the New, prophesies with understanding, as St. John said in Rev-
elation: “The Lord revealed these things to his servants through his ser-
vant John,” 48 and, “Thus saith the Lord.” (2) The person who said this was
sound of mind and understanding — see how < he says the same as the
Old Testament prophets who say* >, “Thus saith the Lord,” and “the vision
which he saw.”

10.3 But this Montanus, who has deceived his victims with his boast
of being a prophet, describes things which are not consistent with sacred
scripture. For in his so-called prophecy he says, “Why sayest thou, [Only]
he that is more than man can be saved? 49 For the righteous shall shine an
hundredfold brighter than the sun; and the least of you that are saved, an
hundredfold brighter than the moon.”

10.4 But the Lord confounds him. And it is he who has the power to
grant radiance to the faces of the saints, who made Moses’ face shine, and
who will transform his saints, who are sown in dishonor and raised in

44 1 Tim 4:3. This discipline was crucial to Montanists, cf. Tert. Pudic. 1.20; Adv. Marc.
1.29.4; Carn. Res. 8.4; Monog., especially 1.2; 14.3. Cf. Jer. Ep. 41.3.1.

45 Montanists regarded second marriages as adultery (Tert. Monog. 15.1; Adv. Hermog.
1.2) and excommunicated those who contracted them (Jer. Ep. 41.3.1).

46 1 Tim 5:11-12. Tertullian takes this passage to mean that the church should not receive
younger widows as converts, Monog. 13.1.

47 1 Tim 5:14.

48 Cf. Rev 1:1.

49 A reference to the rigor of second century penitential discipline?

MONTANISTS

glory, at the coming resurrection of bodies. (5) Not transform bodies other
than their own but change their own bodies, raised entire, and receiving
glory, after < the resurrection >, from him who gives glory unstintingly to
his saints. For as Lord and God he has the power to grant and bestow
glory.

10,6 But although he has < the power > to grant this, he did not make
promises like Montanus’; he said, “Your faces shall shine as the sun.” 50
Now if Jesus Christ, who has the power and is our true Master and Lord,
says that the faces of the righteous will shine as the sun, how can Mon-
tanus promise a hundred times more? (7) Only if he is like the one who
promised Adam, ‘Ye shall be as gods,” 51 and secured his expulsion from
the glory he had and the enjoyment of Paradise, and his degradation to
the corruption of death.

11,1 This same Montanus goes on to add, “I am the Lord God, the
Almighty, dwelling in a man.” (2) Happily the sacred scripture, and the
course of the Holy Spirit’s teaching, keeps us safe by giving us warnings so
that we will know which are the counterfeits of the strange spirit and the
opposites of the truth. (3) Simply by saying this, Montanus has suggested
that we remember the words of the Lord. For the Lord says in the Gos-
pel, “I came in my Father’s name and ye received me not. Another shall
come in his own name, and such a one will ye receive.” 52 (4) Montanus
is thus in total disagreement with the sacred scriptures, as any attentive
reader can see. And since he is in disagreement, < he himself >, and the
sect which like him boasts of having prophets and gifts, are strangers to
the holy catholic church. He did not receive these gifts; he departed from
them.

n,5 What rational person would dare to call these people prophets
instead of < saying > that such prophets are deceivers? Christ taught us,
“I send unto you the Spirit, the Paraclete,” 53 and to give the signs of the
Paraclete, said, “He shall glorify me.” 54 (6) And in fact it is plain that the
holy apostles glorified the Lord after receiving the Paraclete Spirit, while
this Montanus glorifies himself. The Lord glorified his Father; and in
turn, the Lord Christ glorified the Spirit by calling him the Spirit of truth.

50 Cf. Matt 13:43.

51 Gen 3:5.

52 John 5:43.

53 Cf. John 16:7.

54 John 16:4.

MONTANISTS

Montanus, however, glorifies only himself, and says that he is the Father
almighty, and that < the deceitful spirit* > which dwells in him < is the
Paraclete* > — proof positive that he is not the Father, was not sent by the
Father, and has received nothing from the Father. (7) “In the Lord was all
the fullness of the Godhead pleased to dwell bodily,” 55 and “Of his fullness
have all the prophets received,” 56 as St. John has told us. (8) And see how
all the ancient [prophets] announced Christ, and how those who came
after them glorified Christ and confessed him. But Montanus intruded
himself by saying that he was somebody, proof that he is not Christ, was
not sent by Christ, and has received nothing from Christ.

11,9 This pathetic little nobody, Montanus, says in turn, “Neither angel
nor messenger, but I the Lord, God the Father, have come.” 57 In so saying
he will be exposed as a heretic, for he is not glorifying Christ, whom every
regular gift which has been given in the holy church truly glorified. (10)
For we shall find that Montanus is outside the body of the church and the
Head of all, and “does not hold the Head, from whom the whole body, knit
together, increaseth,” 58 as scripture says. For the actual true Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, showed that he was a Son; but Montanus even says that he
is the Father.

12,1 When you Phrygians say you left the church over gifts of grace 59
how can we believe you? Even though you are disguised with the title
of “Christian,” you have launched another enemy attack on us. You have
taken up the barbarians’ quarrel and mimicked the enmity of the Trojans,
who were also Phrygians! (2) Things that are different from gifts and — as
your own prophets say — not the same kind that the Lord promises, can-
not be gifts.

12,3 And in turn, you introduce us to — Maximilla! Even your names
are different and scary, with nothing pleasant and melodious about them,
but with a certain wildness and savagery. (4) At once this Maximilla, who
belongs to these so-called Phrygians — listen to what she says, children of
Christ! “Hearken not unto me, but hearken unto Christ! 60

55 Col 2:9.

56 Cf. John 1:16.

57 Cf. Isa 63:9. At Adv. Marc. 4.22.11 Tertullian applies this saying to Christ himself.

58 Col 2:19.

59 Tert. Adv. Prax. 1.7, “et nos quidem postea agnitio paradyti atque defensio disjunxit a
psychicis."

60 Cf Luke 10:16.

MONTANISTS

12.5 Even where she seemed to be glorifying Christ, she was wrong. If
she were Christ’s she would talk like the holy apostles, as each < of them >
says — Peter first, who says, “We have heard of him.” 61 And the Lord him-
self says, “He that heareth you, heareth me.” 62 And Paul says, “Be ye imita-
tors of me, as I am of Christ.” 63

12.6 But in the act of lying she is telling the truth, even against her will.
She is right to say not to listen to her, but to Christ. Unclean spirits are
often forced to denounce themselves < as > not of the truth and to show,
willy nilly and under duress, who their Lord is. 64 (7) As the damsel with
the oracular spirit said, “These men are servants of the most high God”; 65
and [as the demon in the Gospel said], “Why hast thou come before the
time to torment us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.” 66
So Maximilla, under compulsion, said not to listen to her, but to Christ.
(8) Now how can those who have heard this from her and believed her
care to listen to her — when they have learned from her not to listen to
her, but to the Lord! In fact if they had any sense they shouldn’t listen to
her, since her oracles are of the earth.

12,9 And don’t tell me that she was in a rational state! A rational person
doesn’t condemn himself in his own teaching. If she said anything like,
“Don’t listen to me,” what sort of spirit was speaking in her? (10) For if
she spoke humanly, then she was not in the Holy Spirit — for it is plain
that in saying, “Do not listen to me,” she was speaking humanly, and was
not in the Holy Spirit. But if she was not in the Holy Spirit from on high
but was thinking humanly, she knew nothing and was no prophetess. For
she did not have the Holy Spirit, but spoke and delivered her oracles with
human intelligence.

12,11 But if she did speak and prophesy in the Holy Spirit — what sort
of Holy Spirit would say, “Don’t listen to me?” The blindness of deceit is
stone blind — and great is the word of God, which gives us understanding
in every way, so that we may know what has been spoken by the Holy
Spirit’s inspiration, here in the person of the Father, there in the person
of the Son, there in the person of the Holy Spirit!

61 Cf. Acts 4:20; 2 Pet 1:18.

62 Luke 10:16.

63 1 Cor 11:1.

64 Catholic exorcists exorcise Montanist prophets at Eus. H. E. 5.16.7-8 (Apollinarius);
18.13 (Apollonius); 19.3 (Serapion); Firmilian/Cyprian Ep. 45.10.

65 Acts 16:16-17.

66 Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24.

MONTANISTS

12,12 And if the spirit in Maximilla were a holy < spirit >, it would not
forbid its own utterances. “One is the Holy Spirit, that divideth to each as
he will.” 67 (13) And if he has the power to divide as he will, and is called
the Spirit of knowledge and the Spirit of piety, and is said to be the Spirit
of God and the Spirit of Christ, proceeding from the Father and receiving
of the Son and not foreign to the Father and the Son — then he didn’t
say, “Do not listen to me!” (14) For the Spirit gave Christ’s message and
Christ sends the Spirit, and casts out devils by the Holy Spirit. And the Son
gives the Father’s message and the Father sanctified the Son and sent him
into the world, that they might know him, and might glorify him as they
glorify the Father. And the notion of those who separate themselves from
the following of Christ is all wrong.

13,1 In turn the same Maximilla — this “rational knowledge and teach-
ing,” if 1 may be sarcastic — says, “The Lord hath sent me perforce, will-
ing and not willing, to be votary, herald and interpreter of this burden
and covenant and promise, to impart the knowledge of God.” 68 (2) Let us
look to the firm foundation of our life, beloved, and the lighted pathway,
and not trip on words of the adversary and the prey of the strange spirit.
(3) See the prophet here, who spoke like that and denounced herself, not
willingly but under compulsion. Our Lord did not come into the world
unwillingly, and was not sent under compulsion by the Father. (4) He
has the will in concert with the Father, and the performance of it in con-
cert with the Holy Spirit. And as he himself has the will — and the giving
of grace to all, not perforce but by his superabundant lovingkindness —
in concert with the Father, even so, those whom he has called, he has
called of their own choice, imposing no necessity and clapping no collars
on them. (5) For he says, “Ye that thirst, come to me,” 69 and again, “If
any man will come after me let him follow me.” 70 And he said the same
through Isaiah: “If ye be willing and hearken.” 71 And later, to show who
was speaking, the prophet said, "For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken
these things.” 72

67 1 Cor 12:11.

68 OOTEdTEiXE fie xupio? . . . yivayxaoyEvov, SeXovto: xai p?) SeXovTa, yvwSeiv yvcoatv 8eou. Max-
imilla refers to herself (her spirit?) in the masculine; Epiphanius, however, reads, “The
Lord hath sent me to impart knowledge of God to the willing and the unwilling,” and
refutes on this basis.

69 John 7:37.

70 Matt 16:24.

71 Isa 1:19.

72 Isa 58:14.

MONTANISTS

13,6 And are you fully aware of their disagreement with the sacred
text, and the difference between their notion and opinion, and the faith
and following of God? (7) For Maximilla also said that she compelled the
willing and the unwilling [to know God] — so that her very words make
her a liar. She neither taught the knowledge of God — which she did not
know — to the willing, nor compelled the unwilling [to learn it]. (8) It goes
without saying that the whole world does not know Maximilla’s name, or
her misstatements. And their erroneous notion is all wrong, and no part
of God’s truth.

14,1 Phrygians also venerate a deserted spot in Phrygia, a town once
called Pepuza though it is now leveled, and say that the heavenly Jerusa-
lem will descend there. 73 (2) And so they resort there, celebrate certain
mysteries 74 on the site, and, as they suppose, sanctify < themselves >. For
this breed is also to be found in Cappadocia and Galatia — and in Phrygia
as I said, which is why the sect is called the Phrygian. But they are in Cili-
cia too and, for the most part, in Constantinople.

14.3 But to omit nothing that bears on the name of every sect I have
discussed, I shall also speak, in its turn, of the Tascodrugians’. For this
name is used either in this sect itself, or the one after it, which is called
the sect of the Quintillianists — for this name too originates with these
people themselves.

14.4 They are called Tascodrugians for the following reason. Their word
for “peg” is “tascus,” and “drungus” is their word for “nostril” or “snout.”
And since they put their licking finger, as we call it, on their nostril when
they pray, for dejection, if you please, and would-be righteousness, some
people have given them the name of Tascodrugians, or “nose-pickers.” 75

14.5 They say that a shocking, wicked thing is done in this sect — or in
its sister sect, the one called the sect of the Quintillianists or Priscillianists,
and Pepuzians. (6) At a certain festival they pierce a child — just a little

73 Eus. H. E. 5.18.2; 13; Cyr. Cat. 16.8; Filast. Haer. 49.4. Tertullian speaks of the descent
of the heavenly Jerusalem without mentioning Pepuza, Adv. Marc. 3.24.3-4. Jerome says
that Montanist patriarchs reside at Pepuza, Ep. 41.3.2.

74 Tertullian speaks of distinctively Montanist rites in diversis provinciis, Jejun. 13.5, cf.
13.8.

75 Filast. Haer. 76 appears to describe this group under the name of “Passalorinchitae.”
At Haer. 75 he speaks of “Ascodrugians,” who dance wildly around an inflated wineskin.

MONTANISTS

baby — all over its body with bronze needles and get its blood for sacrifice,
if you please. 76

15,1 But I am content with what I have said about this sect in its turn,
beloved. I promised to withhold nothing about any sect I know, but to
disclose what I have learned by word of mouth, and from treatises, docu-
ments, and persons who truly confirmed my notion. (2) Thus, by writing
no more than I know, I will < not > appear to be guilty of inventing my
own false charges against people, and of getting into the same position as
they by not telling the truth, but declaring things that they have neither
seen, heard, nor learned from the true teaching of the Holy Spirit.

15,3 I give all the facts, as I said, with accuracy, about each sect, and
make these shocking disclosures for the readers’ correction. And I prepare
a sort of medicine made of refutation from the words of sacred scripture
and right reasonings, (4) and compound < it > in the Lord for two pur-
poses: for the recovery of the sufferers from their illness and great pain,
but for (5) a prophylactic, as it were, for those who have never contracted
the disease. Thus may I too be called a disciple of the Lord’s disciples
for imparting the medicine of the truth to the wise, and a disciple of the
Savior himself, the help of bodies and souls.

r5,6 Now, with the power of Christ, let me set myself to go on to the
rest, since I feel that this here will be enough for this sect. I have crushed
its poison, and the venom on its hooked fangs, with the cudgel of the truth
of the cross. For it is like the viper of hemorrhage, whose mischief is to
drain the blood from its victims’ entire bodies and so cause their deaths.
(7) For this sect and the sect of Quintillianists do the same thing. They
stab the body of an innocent child and get its blood to drink, and delude
their victims by < pretending* >, if you please, that this is initiation in the
name of Christ.

r5,8 But as we go on to the rest by the power of Christ, let us call upon
his truth that we may track down the meaning of each imposture, and
after detecting and refuting it, render our accustomed thanks in all things
to God.

76 Cyr. Cat. 16.8: Jer. Ep. 41.4.1. Theod. Haer. Fab. 3.2 and Praedestinatus 26 report this
as a rumor which may not be true.

QUINTILLIANISTS

Against Quintillianists or Pepuzians, also known as Priscillianists, 1
with whom the Artotyrites are associated. 29, but 49 of the series

1,1 The Quintillianists in their turn, who are also called Pepuzians and
known as Artotyrites and Priscillianists, are the same as the Phrygians
and derive from them, but in a certain way are different. (2) For the
Quintillianists or Priscillianists say that either Quintilla 2 or Priscilla — I
cannot say for certain, but one of them, as I said, slept in Pepuza and, as
the deluded women said, Christ came to her and slept beside her, thus:
(3) “Christ came to me in the form of a woman,” 3 she said, “dressed in
a white robe, imbued me wisdom, and revealed to me that this place is
holy, and that Jerusalem will descend from heaven here.” (4) And so even
to this day, they say, certain women — men too — are initiated there on
the site, so that those women or men may await Christ and see him. 4
(5) (They have women they call prophetesses. 5 I am not sure, though,
whether this custom is theirs or the Phrygians’; they are associated and
have the same ideas.)

2.1 They use the Old and the New Testaments, and likewise affirm the
resurrection of the dead. Their founder is Quintilla, along with Priscilla
who was also a Phrygian prophetess.

2.2 They cite many texts pointlessly, and give thanks to Eve because
she was the first to eat from the tree of wisdom. 6 And as scriptural sup-
port for their ordination of women as clergy, they say that Moses’ sister
was a prophetess. 7 What is more, they say, Philip had four daughters who
prophesied. 8

1 Only Epiphanius distinguishes this group from the Montanists, though PsT 7.2 sug-
gests that there are Montanist sub-groups named for their leaders. Epiphanius might have
conjectured the existence of this sect from the distinctiveness of Priscilla’s vision, or from
its occurrence in a document different from his collection of Montanist prophecies.

2 Only Epiphanius mentions Quintilla.

3 “Tetrad” appears in female form at Iren. Haer. 1.14.1; Protennoia does the same at NHC
Tri. Prot. 42,17-18.

4 Or, “may live long enough to see Christ.”

5 Tertullian considers woman prophets a mark of divine endorsement and cites 1 Cor
11:5 (Adv. Marc. 5.8.11); cf. De Anima 9.4.

6 Eve is the “instructor of life" at NHL Orig. Wld. 113,33; cf- Apoc. Adam 69,14-18. For
further material see Pagels.

7 Did. Trin. 3.41.23.

8 Eus. H. E. 3.37.1; 5.17.3; Did. Trin. 3.41.3.

QUINTILLIANISTS

2.3 In their church seven virgins often come in carrying lamps, if you
please, dressed in white, to prophesy to the people. (4) They deceive the
congregation with a show of some sort of inspiration and, as though urg-
ing them to the mourning of penitence, 9 get them all weeping, shedding
tears and pretending to mourn for humankind. (5) They have woman
bishops, presbyters and the rest; 10 they say that none of this makes any
difference because "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” * 11
(6) This is what I have learned [about them]. However, they call them
Artotyrites because they set forth bread and cheese in their mysteries and
celebrate their mysteries with them. 12

3,1 But every human illusion < comes of > deserting the right faith and
opting for something impossible, and for various frenzies and secret rites.
For if they do not cling to the anchor of the truth but entrust themselves
< to their own reason* >, their minds are always maddened, and bring
them [to frenzy] for any reason at all. (2) Even though it is because of Eve
that they ordain women to the episcopate and presbyterate, they should
listen to the Lord when he says, “Thy resort shall be to thine husband,
and he shall rule over thee.” 13 (3) And they have overlooked the apostle’s
command, “I suffer not a woman to speak, or to have authority over a
man,” 14 and again, “The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the
man, 15 and, “Adam was not deceived, but Eve, deceived first, fell into con-
demnation.”

What a profusion of error there is in this world!

3.4 And now that a toothless, witless < serpent* >
like a gecko, I shall pass this sect by, beloved, and go on to the rest, call-
ing upon God as the help of my lowliness, and for the fulfillment of my
promise.

9 For Montanist emphasis on penitence see Eus. H. E. 5.18.9.

10 A prophetess celebrates the eucharist, preaches and baptizes at Firmilian/Cyprian
Ep 75.10; Epiphanius criticizes the Marcionite practice of baptism by women at Pan 42,4,5.

11 Gal 3:28.

12 Sacramental use of cheese is found at Act. Perpet. 4.9; possibly of milk at Tert. Adv.
Marc. 1.14.3.

13 Gen 3:16.

14 1 Tim 2:12.

15 1 Tim 2:14.

QUARTODECIMANS

Against Quarto decimans. 1 Number 30, but 50 of the series

1,1 From these two intermingled sects of Phrygians and Quintillianists
or Priscillianists, another one, called the sect of the Quartodecimans,
emerged in its turn. (2) These too hold all the doctrines that the church
does; but they lose hold of them all because of not adhering to the proper
order and teaching, but still to Jewish fables. And yet their doctrines are
not the same as the Jews’, “For they know not what they say nor whereof
they afhrm.” 2

1,3 Quartodecimans contentiously keep the Passover on one day, once
a year, 3 even though their doctrine of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit is good and in agreement with < ours >, and they accept the proph-
ets, apostles and evangelists, and likewise confess the resurrection of the
flesh, the judgment to come and everlasting life. (4) But they have fallen
into an error, and one of no small importance, by supposedly following
the letter of the Law’s saying, “Cursed is he who shall not keep the Pass-
over on the fourteenth day of the month.” 4 (5) Others though, who keep
the same one day and fast and celebrate the mysteries on the same one
day, boast that they have found the precise date in the Acts of Pilate, if
you please; it says there that the Savior suffered on the eighth before the
Kalends of April. 5

1,6 They will keep the Passover on whichever day it is that the four-
teenth of the month falls; 6 but the ones in Cappadocia keep the eighth
before the Kalends of April as that same one day. (7) And there is no little
dissension in their ranks, since some say the fourteenth day of the month,
but some, the eighth before the Kalends of April. (8) Furthermore, I have
found copies of the Acts of Pilate which say that the passion came on the
fifteenth before the Kalends of April. 7 But in fact, as I know from much
minute investigation, I have found that the Savior suffered on the thir-

1 Cf. Eus. H. E. 5.23-24; Hippol. Haer. 8.18; PsT 8.1. These are authors Epiphanius knows,
but at 1,5-8 he shows further knowledge, independent of them, of the Quartodecimans.

2 1 Tim 1:7.

3 I.e., rather than keeping a week-long fast. Cf. Eus. H.E. 5.24.12 (Irenaeus).

4 Cf. Lev 23:5; Num 9:4-5; Deut 27:28, and see Hippol. Haer. 8.18.1.

5 I.e., the day of the spring equinox. Cf. Acts of Pilate, Prologue; Hippol. In Dan. 4:23;
Tert. Adv. Jud. 8.

6 So Hippol. Haer. 8.18.1.

7 Probably a variant date of the spring equinox (Strobel p. 223).

QUARTODECIMANS

teenth before the Kalends of April 8 Some, however, say it was the tenth
before the Kalends of April. 9

1,9 But the Quartodecimans too have departed from the prescribed
path. (But I am afraid of making my discussion of them extremely long
too, for I have a great deal to say.) (2,1) After he had finished the entire
Law, the law-giver Moses was commanded by God to put all the curses in
the last book, Deuteronomy — not only the curse about the Passover, but
the ones about circumcision, tithing and offerings. (2) Thus if they avoided
one curse they fell foul of many. They would be accursed if they were not
circumcised and accursed if they did not tithe; and they are accursed for
not presenting offerings at Jerusalem. (3) Shame on the people who get
themselves into all kinds of quarrels! Well may we quote the wise saying
of the Preacher, expressly set forth for us by the Holy Spirit: "This the
preacher doth know, that God hath made the wise man a straight path,
but they have sought for themselves many ways.” 10

2,4 In what way is their idea not wrong? In the first place, if they keep
the Passover on the fourteenth of the month, they need to take the lamb
on the tenth and keep it until the fourteenth, and there is no longer one
day of fasting but five: the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and four-
teenth. (5) But if the paschal lamb is killed toward evening, by its dawning
this fourteenth day makes six days in the fast, and there will no longer
be one fast day — and their quest for one day has failed, since there is no
one day.

2,6 For the types [of the Lord’s death and resurrection] have been
combined at the cost of no little godly study. Christ needed to be slain
on the fourteenth of the month in accordance with the Law, so that their
light that illumined them under the Law would go out for them, since the
sun had risen and hidden the light of the moon. (7) For the moon is on
the wane after the fourteenth. Hence even in the Law the Jewish syna-
gogue was dimmed by Christ’s incarnation and passion, and the Gospel
outshone it — although, because the Law was not abolished but served to
prove the truth, the Law was not destroyed but fulfilled.

8 This date is given in the spurious Acta of the Council of Caesarea 1; Martin of Bracara
De Pascha 1; Niceta of Remesiana (=Tractatus Athanasii) 1; Soz. Hist. 7.18. Sozomen says
that it is the date celebrated by Montanists.

9 Consularia Constant. MG. Auct. Antiq. g.220; Chronicon Paschale 218; Lactantius Div.
Inst. 4.10.8.

10 Eccles 7:29.

ALOGI

2,8 So too, at the celebration of the Passover in Jericho the sacred
scripture at once added, “And the children of Israel kept the Passover and
ate it in Gilgal, and the manna ceased.” 11 (g) This was its further testimony
to them, and its prophecy that their angelic, heavenly food, which they
called manna, 12 would come to an end because of the Lord’s suffering for
their denial of God.

3,1 But since she makes the combination she does, God’s holy church
does not miss the truth of the observance of this mystery in any way.
(2) She observes not only the fourteenth day, but also the seventh as it
recurs regularly < in the > order of the seven days of the week, so that the
resurrection and the festival will correspond with the deeds of the Lord

< just as > they do with the type [of them]. (3) And she observes not only
the fourteenth day of the lunar month, but the course of the sun as well,
so that we will not keep two Passovers in one year and not even celebrate
one in another.

3.4 We observe the fourteenth day, then, but we wait until after the
equinox and bring the end of our fulfillment [of the commandment] 13
to the sacred Lord’s Day. But we take the lamb on the tenth day by
acknowledging the name of Jesus through its “iota,” 14 so that, < by > the
true canonical practice of them, we will neglect no part of this life-giving

< festival > of the Passover in accordance with the entire truth.

3.5 However, since by Christ’s power I am done with the swollenness
of this gudgeon or toad, I shall pass it by and give my attention to the rest,
making my usual supplication for God’s help.

6,i Against the sect which does not accept the Gospel according to John,
and his Revelation. 31, but 5; of the series * 1

1,1 Following these sects — after the the ones called Phrygians, Quintillian-
ists and Quartodecimans — there arose another sect, like a feeble snake
which cannot bear the odor of dittany — that is, storax — or of frankin-
cense or southernwood, or the smell of pitch, incense, lignite or hartshorn.

11 Josh 5:10-12.

12 I.e., the Law.

13 The commandment, “They shall take to them every man a lamb . . Exod 12:3-6.

14 Ten.

1 Individuals or groups who took this position are described at Iren. Haer. 3.11.9; Eus.

H. E. 7.25.2-3; Hippol. Capitula Adversus Gaium. Epiph may himself have read works of
this nature, see 51,29,1; 5.

ALOGI

(2) For those who are familiar with them say that these substances have
the effect of driving poisonous snakes away; and some call dittany “tit-
tany” 2 because professional physicians use it as an aid for women in child-
birth. 3 I may thus appropriately compare it with the divine Word who
descended from the heavens, and has been begotten of the Father outside
of time and without beginning.

1.3 Solomon says of a foolish, worthless woman, "She hateth a word
of sureness.” 4 These people too have hated the Gospel’s surenesses, since
they are of the earth and at enmity with the heavens. (4) Therefore, for
fear of the Holy Spirit’s voice which says, “The voice of the Lord restoreth
the hinds,” 5 < they reject his proclamation of the divine Word* > who told
his servants and apostles, “Lo, I have given you power to tread upon ser-
pents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.” 6 (5) For this is
the voice that restores the hinds, the voice which resounded in the world
through the holy apostles and evangelists, to trample on the devil’s oppo-
sition. < One of > these, St. John, checked this with the utmost effective-
ness, and tried the power of the deceived, and of the snakelike heretics.

2,1 But these people will not prevail in the ark. The holy Noah is directed
by God’s command to make the ark secure, as God says to him, “Thou shalt
pitch it within and without” 7 ’ 8 — to prefigure God’s holy church, which has
the power of pitch, which drives the horrid, baneful, snake-like teachings
away. For where pitch is burned, no snake can remain. (2) The holy sto-
rax incense stuns them, and they avoid its sweet odor. And the power of
southernwood or frankincense < drives them away* > if it grows over the
serpent itself and sprouts above its den.

2.3 For in the same place — 1 mean in Asia — where Ebion, Cerinthus
and their coterie preached that Christ is a mere man and the product
of sexual intercourse, the Holy Spirit caused this sacred plant or shrub
to sprout which has driven the serpent away and destroyed the devil’s
tyranny. (4) For in his old age St.John was told by the Holy Spirit to preach
there, 9 and bring back those who had lost their way on the journey —

2 TlJCTafXVOV.

3 TIXTOUCCOV.

4 Prov 11:15.

5 Ps 28:9.

6 Luke 10:19.

7 Gen 6:14.

8 The pun is on ETraatpaXiawSai and datpaXTcoaEu;.

9 Iren. Haer. 3.2.1, and the reconstructed monarchian prologue at Corssen pp. 80-81.

ALOGI

[bring them], not by force but of their own free choice, by revealing God’s
light to the obedient, which is in God’s holy teaching. (5) But how long
must I go on? It is a fact that no snake can stay any longer or make its
den where southernwood grows; and where God’s true teaching is, a den
of snake-like teaching cannot prevail but will be destroyed.

3.1 Now these Alogi say — this is what I call them. They shall be so
called from now on, and let us give them this name, beloved, Alogi. (2) For
they believed in the heresy for which < that* > name < was a good one* >,
since it rejects the books by John. As they do not accept the Word which
John preaches, they shall be called Dumb. 10 (3) As complete strangers to
the truth’s message they deny its purity, and accept neither John’s Gospel
nor his Revelation.

3,4 And if they accepted the Gospel but rejected the Revelation, I would
say they might be doing it from scrupulousness, and refusing to accept an
“apocryphon” because of the deep and difficult sayings in the Revelation.
(5) But since they do not accept the books in which St. John actually pro-
claimed his Gospel, it must be plain to everyone that they and their kind
are the ones of whom St. John said in his General Epistles, "It is the last
hour and ye have heard that Antichrist cometh; even now, lo, there are
many Antichrists.” 11 (6) For they offer excuses [for their behavior]. Know-
ing, as they do, that St. John was an apostle and the Lord’s beloved, that
the Lord rightly revealed the mysteries to him, and < that he* > leaned
upon his breast, they are ashamed to contradict him and try to object to
these mysteries for a different reason. For they say that they are not John’s
composition but Cerinthus’, and have no right to a place in the church.

4.1 And it can be shown at once, from this very attack, that they
“understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.” 12 How can
the words which are directed against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? (2) Cer-
inthus says that Christ is of recent origin and a mere man, while John
has proclaimed that < he > is the eternal Word, and has come from on
high and been made flesh. From the very outset, then, their worthless
quibble is exposed as foolish, and unaware of its own refutation. (3) For
they appear to believe what we do; but because they do not hold to the
certainties of the message God has revealed to us through St. John, they
will be convicted of shouting against the truth about things which they do

10 ’Akoyoi.

11 1 John 2:16.

12 1 Tim 1:7.

ALOGI

not know. (4) They will be known to them, though, if they choose to sober
up and take notice; I am not discarding the teachings of the Holy Spirit in
all their importance and certainty.

4,5 For they say against themselves — I prefer not to say, “against the
truth” — that John’s books do not agree with the other apostles. 13 And now
they think they can attack his holy, inspired teaching. (6) “And what,” they
argue, "did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.’ 14 And, ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us, and we knew his glory, glory as of an only Son of a Father, full
of grace and truth.’ 15 (7) And immediately afterwards, ‘John bare witness
and cried, saying, This he of whom I said unto you,’ 16 and, ‘This is the
Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’ 17

“And next he says, ‘They that heard him said, Rabbi, where dwellest
thou?’ 18 and in the same breath, (8) ‘On the morrow Jesus would go forth
into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.’ 19 (g) And
shortly thereafter he says, ‘And after three days there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage
supper, and his mother was there.’ 20 (10) But the other evangelists say that
he spent forty days in the wilderness tempted by the devil, and then came
back and chose his disciples.”

4,11 And dense as they are, they don’t know that each evangelist was
concerned to say what the others had said, in agreement with them, while
at the same time revealing what they had not said, but had omitted. For
the will was not theirs; both their order and their teaching came from the
Holy Spirit. (12) If our opponents want to attackjohn, they must learn that
the other three did not begin from the same point in the narrative.

For Matthew was the first to become an evangelist. The first issuance of
the Gospel was assigned to him. (I have spoken largely of this in another
Sect; 21 however, I shall not mind dealing with the same things again, as
proof of the truth and in refutation of the erring.) (5,1) As I said, Mat-
thew was privileged to be the first < to issue > the Gospel, and this was

13 So, apparently, did the second century heretic Gaius. See Labriolle p. 48.

14 John 1:1.

15 John 1:14.

16 John 1:15; 30.

17 John 1:29.

18 John 1:38.

19 John 1:43.

20 John 2:1-2.

21 Pan. 20,8,4; 30,3,7.

ALOGI

absolutely right. Because he had repented of many sins, and had risen from
the receipt of custom and followed Him who came for man’s salvation and
said, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” 22 it
was Matthew’s duty to present the message of salvation < first >, as an
example for us, who would be saved like this man who was restored in
the tax office and turned from his iniquity. From him men would learn
the graciousness of Christ’s advent.

5.2 For after the forgiveness of his sins he was granted the raising of
the dead, the cleansing of leprosy, miracles of healing and the casting
out of devils, so that he < would > not merely persuade his hearers by
his speech, but publish 23 good tidings with actual deeds — [publish] the
tidings of their salvation through repentance, to the perishing; the tidings
that they would arise, to the fallen; and the tidings that they would be
quickened, to the dead.

5.3 Matthew himself wrote and issued the Gospel in the Hebrew alpha-
bet, and did not begin at the beginning, but traced Christ’s pedigree from
Abraham. “Abraham begat Isaac,” he said, “and Isaac begat Jacob,” 24 and
so on down to Joseph and Mary. (4) And he wrote at the beginning, ‘The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David,” and then said,
“the son of Abraham.” 25 Then, coming to his main point, he said, “The birth
of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost. (5) And Joseph, being a just man, sought to put her away privily.
And lo, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, Put not
away thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (6)
For lo, she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall
save his people from their sins. And this was done,” he said, “to fulfill that
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin
shall be with child,” 26 and so on.

5,7 “And Joseph,” he said, “being raised from sleep, did so and took
unto him his wife, and knew her not till she brought forth her first-born
son, and he called his name Jesus. (8) Now when Jesus was born in Beth-
lehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise
men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born king of

22 Matt 9:13.

23 Klostermann: xv;pui;y]; Holl: <Suvv)Tai> xvjptiljai.

24 Matt 1:2.

25 Matt 1:1.

26 Matt 1:18-23.

ALOGI

the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship
him.” 27

5.9 Now then, where is the story of Zacharias? Where are the subjects
Luke discussed? Where is the vision of the angel? Where is the prophecy
about John the Baptist? Where is the rebuke of Zacharias, so that he could
not speak until the angel’s words had come true?

5.10 Where are the things Gabriel told the Virgin? Where is his reas-
surance, when Mary answered the angel himself with wisdom and asked,
“How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” 28 And where is his accurate
and clear explanation, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee?” 29

6,1 Well, what shall I say? Because Matthew did not report the events
which Luke related, can St. Matthew be in disagreement with the truth?
Or is St. Luke not telling the truth, because he has said < nothing > about
the things that had been previously dealt with by Matthew? (2) Didn’t
God give each evangelist his own assignment, so that each of the four
evangelists whose duty was to proclaim the Gospel could find what he
was to do and proclaim some things in agreement and alike to show that
they came from the same source, but otherwise 30 describe what another
had omitted, as each received his proportionate share from the Spirit?

6,3 Now what shall we do? Matthew declares that Mary gave birth in
Bethlehem < and > < describes* > Christ’s incarnation in terms of the pedi-
gree he traces from Abraham’s and David’s line. St. Mark, we find, says
none of this (4) but begins the Gospel with the event that took place in
the Jordan and says, “The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah
the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness.” 31 (5) < Is Mark lying,
then? Of course not! There was no reason for him to repeat information
which had already been given* >. Similarly, the things St. John discussed,
and confirmed in the Holy Spirit, were not just meant to repeat what had
already been proclaimed, but to speak of the teachings the others had had
to leave to John.

6,6 For the whole treatment of the Gospel was of this nature. After
Matthew had proclaimed Christ’s generation, his conception through the
Holy Spirit, < and > his incarnation as a descendant of David and Abraham,

27 Matt 1:24-2:2.

28 Luke 1:34.

29 Luke 1:35.

30 Klostermann itXko<; <aXk.u><;>, MSS aXkot;.

31 Mark 1:1-3.

ALOGI

an error arose in those who had not understood the narrative which was
intended in good faith to provide assurance of these things from the Gos-
pel. (Not that the Gospel was responsible for their error; their own wrong
notion was.) (7) And this was why Cerinthus and Ebion held that Christ
was a mere man, and < misled* > Merinthus, 32 Cleobius 33 or Cleobulus, 34
Claudius, Demas 35 and Hermogenes, 36 who had loved this world and
left the way of the truth. (8) For they contradicted the Lord’s disciples
at that time, and tried to use the genealogy from Abraham and David as
proof of their nonsense — not in good faith, but seizing on it as an excuse.
(9) For they were often contradicted by St. John and his friends, Leucius
and many others. But shamelessness struck its forehead, and did its best
to bring its own woes on itself.

6,10 Mark, who came directly after Matthew, was ordered by St. Peter
at Rome to issue the Gospel, and after writing it was sent by St. Peter to
Egypt. (11) He was one of the seventy-two who had been dispersed by the
Lord’s saying, “Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not
worthy of me” 37 — as < can be > plainly proved to the readers of the Gos-
pels. Still, after his restoration by Peter he was privileged to proclaim the
Gospel by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.

6,12 He began his proclamation where the Spirit told him, and put the
opening of it at the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, thirty years after Mat-
thew’s account. (13) Since he was a second evangelist, and gave no clear
indication of the divine Word’s descent from on high — he does this every-
where plainly, but not with as much precision [as Matthew] — a darken-
ing of their minds fell once more upon these misguided people, so that
they were not held worthy of the Gospel’s illumination. (14) “Look,” they
said, “here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere
does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead,” they said, “the Spirit
descended upon him in the Jordan and < there came* > a voice, ‘This is
my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ ” 38

7,1 Since this was the conclusion that had been reached by these stupid
people, the Holy Spirit compelled St. Luke and spurred him on to raise the

32 Pan. 28,8,1. But there Epiphanius is unsure whether Merinthus is a heretic so named,
or an alternate name for Cerinthus.

33 Eus. H.E. 4.22.5 (Hegesippus); Didascalia 23 Connolly p.; Const. Ap. 6.8.1.

34 Cf. Ps.-Ignatius Trail. 11.

35 Col 4:14; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:10.

36 2 Tim 1:15.

37 Cf. John 6:53.

38 Cf. Mark 1:10-11.

ALOGI

minds of the misguided from the lowest depths, as it were, and once again
take up what the other evangelists had omitted. (2) < But > lest some mis-
guided person should think his description of Christ’s generation ficti-
tious, he carried the matter back, and for accuracy’s sake went through
his whole account in the fullest detail. (3) And he produced those who
had been ministers of the word as his witnesses in support of the truth;
and he said, “Inasmuch as many have attacked,” 39 to show that there were
attackers — I mean Cerinthus, Merinthus and the others.

7,4 What does he say next? “It seemed good to me, having attended
closely to them which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and minis-
ters of the word, to write unto thee, most excellent Theophilus” — whether
he said this because he was then writing to someone named Theophilus,
or to every lover of God — “< that thou mayest know > the certainty of
the things wherein thou hast been instructed.” 40 (5) And he said that the
instruction was already written, as though Theophilus had already been
instructed by others, but had not learned the precise truth from them
with certainty.

7,6 Next he says, “There was in the days of Herod the king a priest
named Zacharias of the course of the high priest Abijah, and his wife was of
the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” 41 (7) And he begins
before Matthew. Matthew had indicated a period of thirty years from the
beginning, while Mark — like Matthew and Luke — had set down what hap-
pened after < the > thirty years, the event which truly took place in the Jor-
dan. (8) But Matthew began his account thirty years before the event at the
Jordan and the baptism. Now Luke told of the period of six months before
the Savior’s conception, and again, the period of the nine months and a few
days following the conception of the Lord, so that the entire period of time
[described in Luke] is thirty-one years and a bit more.

7,9 Luke also describes the shepherds’ vision, [which was shown them]
by the angels who brought them the tidings. And he describes how Christ
was born in Bethlehem, laid in a manger in swaddling clothes, and cir-
cumcised the eighth day, and how they made an offering for him forty
days later in obedience to the Law, Simeon took <him> in his arms, and
Anna the daughter of Phanuel gave thanks for him; and how he went away
to Nazareth and returned to Jerusalem each year with his parents, who

39 Luke 1:1.

40 Luke 1:3-4.

41 Luke 1:5.

ALOGI

made the offerings for him that the Law required. But neither Matthew
nor Mark has dealt with any of this, and certainly not John. Instead, they
said, “the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and < there came* > a
voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” 42

8.1 And so, as they go through their refutations of the Gospel account,
certain other Greek philosophers — I mean Porphyry, Celsus, 43 and that
dreadful, deceitful serpent of Jewish extraction, Philosabbatius — accuse
the holy apostles, though they [themselves] are natural and carnal, make
war by fleshly means and cannot please God, and have not understood
< the things which have been said > by the Spirit.

8.2 Tripping over the words of the truth because of the blindness of
their ignorance, each < of them > lit upon this point and said, “How can
the day of his birth in Bethlehem have a circumcision eight days after it,
and forty days later the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the things Simeon
and Anna did for him, (3) when an angel appeared to him the night he
was born, after the arrival of the magi who came to worship him, and who
opened their bags and offered him gifts? As it says, ‘An angel appeared to
him saying, Arise, take thy wife and the young child and go unto Egypt,
for Herod seeketh the young child’s life.’ 44 (4) Now then, if he was taken
to Egypt the very night he was born and was there until Herod died, how
can he stay [in Bethlehem] for eight days and be circumcised? Or how can
Luke < fail to* > be caught in a lie when he tells us that Jesus was brought
to Jerusalem after* < forty days* >?” — so they say in blasphemy against
their own heads, because he says, “On the fortieth day they brought him
to Jerusalem and < returned > to Nazareth from there.” 45

9,1 And the ignoramuses do not know the power of the Holy Spirit; to
each evangelist it was given to describe the true events of each time and
season. And Matthew reported only Christ’s generation by the Holy Spirit
and conception without a man’s seed, but said nothing about circumci-
sion, or the two years — any of the things that happened to him after his
birth. (2) Instead, as the true word of God bears witness, he describes
the coming of the magi. For Herod asked the magi for the time, and
demanded the exact time of the star’s appearance, and Matthew gave the

42 Cf. Mark 1:10-11.

43 See Orig. Cels. 1.40; 48; 91.5-7. Origen mentions the seeming discrepancy between
Matthew and Luke at In Joh. 10.3.

44 Matt 2:13.

45 Cf. Luke 2:22; 39.

ALOGI

magi’s answer, that it was no more than two years before. Thus this period
of time is not the one Luke deals with.

9,3 Luke, however, describes the events before < the > two years —
whereas Matthew spoke of Christ’s birth and then skipped to the time two
years later and indicated what happened after < the > two years. (4) And
so, when Herod deliberated after the magi’s departure by another route,
he assumed that < the > new-born child himself would be found among
all the other children and killed along with them. (5) For he ordered the
killing of all the children in the vicinity of Bethlehem who had been two
years old or less on the very day the magi came to him. Who, then, can
fail to realize that the child who had been born was two years old when
the magi came?

g,6 Indeed, [Luke’s] account itself makes the facts clear in their entirety.
For Luke says that the child was swaddled as soon as he was born, and
lay in a manger and cave because there was no room in the inn. (7) For
a census was then in progress, and the people who had been scattered at
the time of the wars in the Maccabees’ time were dispersed all over the
world, and very few had continued to live in Bethlehem. And thus Beth-
lehem is called the city of David in one copy of the Evangelists, while in
another it calls it a village, because it had come to occupy a small area.
(8) But when the emperor Augustus’ decree was issued, and those who
had been dispersed had to go to Bethlehem for enrollment because of
their family origins, the influx of the multitudes filled the place, and
because of the crowding there was no room in the inn.

g,9 But then, after the census, everyone went back to wherever they
lived and room was made in Bethlehem, (ro) Now when < the > first year
was over and the second year had passed, Christ’s parents came from Naza-
reth to Bethlehem as though to the original gathering — as a sort of memo-
rial because of what had happened there, (rr) Thus the arrival of the magi
occurred on this occasion, and probably not during Mary’s and Joseph’s
visit at the time of the census which Luke mentions. For the magi did not
find Mary in the cavern where she gave birth but, as the Gospel says, the
star led them to the place where the young child was. (r2) And they entered
the house and found the baby with Mary — no longer in a manger, no longer
in a cave, but in a house — showing the exact truth and the two-year inter-
val, that is, from Christ’s birth until the arrival of the magi.

g,r3 And the angel appeared that night, two years after the birth, and
said to take the mother and child to Egypt. Thus Joseph did not go back
again to Nazareth but escaped to Egypt with the child and his mother,

ALOGI

and spent another two years there. And so, after Herod’s death, the angel
< appeared* > again < and* > sent them back to Judaea.

10.1 The Lord was born in the thirty-third year of Herod, the magi
came in the thirty-fifth, and in the thirty-seventh year Herod died and
his son Archelaus inherited the throne and reigned for nine years, as I
have already said in other places. 46 (2) When Joseph heard of Archelaus
he returned and went to Nazareth to make his home, and from there, in
turn, went each year to Jerusalem.

10.3 Do you see the precision there is in the sacred Gospels about every
event? But because the ignorant have blinded their own minds and do
not know the intent of each saying, they simply shout and rave against
the holy < evangelists >, saying nothing truthful but depriving themselves
of life.

10.4 And then, after the first part of his narrative, Luke tells in turn how
Christ went to Jerusalem in his twelfth year, thus leaving no opportunity
for those who think, as Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest supposed, that Christ
simply appeared in the world as a grown man and came to the Jordan to
John. (5) For the serpent is a dreadful one, crawls a crooked course, and
does not stand by one opinion; some suppose that Christ was engendered
by sexual congress and a man’s seed, but others, that he simply appeared
as a [grown] man.

10,6 And this is why the holy evangelists write with precision, describ-
ing everything in exact detail. As though raising his mind from earth to
the heavens, Luke expressly said, “And Jesus began to be about thirty years
of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.” 47 (7) Supposition is not
fact; Joseph was in the position of a father to Jesus because this pleased
God, but since he had no relations with Mary he was not his father.
(8) He was simply called her husband because he was espoused to her
as an old man of about eighty, with six sons (sic!) 48 by his actual first
wife. But he was given this charge, as I have explained more precisely
elsewhere. How could he be Christ’s father when he had no conjugal rela-
tions? This is not possible.

11.1 But you will ask me, if he did not have her, why was he called her
husband? Whoever doubts this does not know the Law’s provision that
once a woman is designated a man’s wife, she is called the wife of the man

46 E.g., at De Incarnatione 2.1-3.

47 Luke 3:23.

48 Anc. 60,1-3; Pan 30,29,8; 11; 78,7-9. But Epiphanius regularly gives Joseph four sons
and two daughters, cf. Anc. 60,1; Pan. 78,7,6.

ALOGI

so designated, even though she is a virgin and still in her father’s house.
And thus the holy angel said, “Fear not to take unto thee thy wife .” 49

11.2 And lest it be thought that < there is > some error in the Gospels —
for the mystery is awesome and beyond human telling, and only to the
Holy Spirit’s children is the statement of it plain and clear — (3) < he
says >, “He was about thirty years old, supposedly the son of Joseph, the
son of Eli, the son of Matthan,” 50 and traces his ancestry to Abraham,
where Matthew began. But he goes past Noah and comes to Adam, to
indicate the first man, who was sought for by the One who came from
his clay — that is, the One who came from the holy Virgin Mary. (4) (For
Christ has come for that first man, and for those of his descendants who
desire to inherit eternal life.)

And he goes past Adam and says, “Son of God.” 51 (5) From this, at length,
it was perfectly plain that he was the Son of God, but that he had come in
the flesh as Adam’s lineal descendant. But once more the misguided did
not see the light; in their self-deceit, < and their preference of falsehood* >
to truth, they spoke against what [Luke] said. (6) “Here is a third Gospel,
Luke’s,” they said — (for Luke was given this commission. He too was one
of the seventy-two who had been scattered because of the Savior’s say-
ing. But he was brought back to the Lord by St. Paul and told to issue his
Gospel. And he preached in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy and Macedonia first, but
originally in Gaul, as Paul says of certain of his followers in his epistles,
“Crescens is in Gaul.” 52 It does not say, “in Galatia,” as some mistakenly
believe, but “in Gaul.”)

12,1 But to get to the point. Although Luke had traced Christ’s pedi-
gree from its end to its beginning and reached the point where, to turn
the misguided from their error, he hinted at the divine Word’s advent
and simultaneous union with his human nature, they did not understand.
(2) Later, therefore, though from caution and humility he had declined
to be an evangelist, the Holy Spirit compelled John to issue the Gospel in
his old age when he was past ninety, after his return from Patmos under
Claudius Caesar, and several years of his residence in Asia.

12.3 And John did not need to speak in detail of the [Savior’s] advent;
that had already been confirmed. But, as though he were following behind
people and saw them in front of him choosing very rough, circuitous,

49 Matt 1:20.

50 Luke 3:23-24.

51 Luke 3:38.

52 2 Tim 4:19.

ALOGI

thorny paths, John was concerned to recall them to the straight way, and
took care to call out to them for their protection, “Why are you going
wrong? Which turn are you taking? Where are you wandering off to,
Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest? It is not as you suppose.

12,4 “Sure, plainly Christ was conceived in the flesh; look, I confess
myself that the Word was made flesh. But don’t suppose that he was him-
self only from the time when he was made flesh. He doesn’t exist from
Mary’s time only, as each of us exists from the time of our conception,
but before his conception is not there. (5) The holy divine Word, the Son
of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, isn’t just from Mary’s time, or just from
Joseph’s time, or Eli’s, Levi’s, Zerubbabel’s, Shealtiel’s, Nathan’s, David’s,
Jacob’s or Isaac’s. And not just from the time of Abraham, Noah or Adam,
or the fifth day of creation, the fourth, the third, the second, or the cre-
ation of heaven and earth or the beginning of the universe.

12,6 "No, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and without him
was not anything made that was made,’ 53 and so on. (7) And then, ‘There
was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for
a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might
believe. He was not the light, but was sent to bear witness of the light. The
true light, that lighteneth every man, was coming into the world. He was
in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him
not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, who
were born not of blood and flesh, but of God. (8) And the Word was made
flesh,’ he said, ‘and dwelt among us. John bare witness of him and cried
saying, ‘This is he of who I spake unto you,’ and, ‘Of his fullness we have
all received.’ 54 And he said, ‘I am not the Christ, but the voice of one cry-
ing in the wilderness.’” 55

13,1 And when he is describing all this he says, “These things were done
in Bethabara” — “Bethany” in other copies — “beyond Jordan.” 56 (2) And
after this he states that John’s disciples asked Jesus, “Rabbi, where dwell-
est thou? And he said, Come and see. And they went, and remained with
him that day.” 57 (3) And the next day “It was about the tenth hour; one of

53 John 1:1-2.

54 John 1:6-16.

55 John 1:20; 23.

56 John 1:28. Origen reads “Bethabara” at In Joh. 6.40.

57 John 1:38-39.

ALOGI

the two which had followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He
first hndeth his own brother Simon and saith unto him, We have found
Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ. He brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looking on him saith, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah; thou shalt
be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter.

r3,4 “On the morrow he would go forth into Galilee and hndeth Philip,
and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city
of Andrew and Peter. Philip hndeth Nathanael and saith unto him, We
have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the prophets did write,
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can
there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said unto him, Come
and see. (5) Jesus seeing Nathanael come unto him saith of him, Behold an
Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence
knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip
called thee, when thou wast under the hg tree, I saw thee. Nathanael
answered him and said, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king
of Israel. (6) Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee,
I saw thee under the hg tree, believest thou? Verily, verily I say unto you,
Ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descend-
ing upon the Son of Man. (7) And the third day there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee,” 58 and so on.

All this will show that he came back to the Jordan after the forty days
of the temptation, his return from the temptation itself, and his start for
Nazareth and Galilee, as the other three evangelists have said. (8) This
will also be shown by the words of John [the Baptist], “Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” 59 And on another day,
as he saw him on his way, he said, “This is he of whom I said unto you,
He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.” 60
“And John bore witness,” it says, “I saw the Spirit in the form of a dove
descending and coming upon him.” 61

r3,g “Bore witness” and “This is he of whom I said unto you,” suggest
that John is speaking of two different times already past, to show that this
is not the same as the time of the baptism, but a different one. (ro) For
Jesus did not go straight to John from the temptation, but went to Galilee
first and then from Galilee to the Jordan, making this < the second time

58 John 1:39-2:1.

59 John 1:29.

60 John 1:30.

61 Cf. John 1:32.

ALOGI

he came* > to John. And so John says, “This was he of whom I said unto
you;” and the Gospel goes on to say, “And John bore witness, I saw” — as
though the thing had already taken place some time before.

14.1 The original call of Peter and Andrew is shown after this. For
Andrew went to visit Jesus — one of the two who followed him, who were
John’s disciples but still lived in Galilee and now and then spent time with
John. (2) And just after Andrew had stayed with him that day — it was
about the sixth hour — he happened to meet his brother Simon that very
same day, and said the words I have already mentioned, “We have found
the Messiah.” And he brought him to the Lord and so on, as the sequel —
that Jesus told him, “Thou shalt be called Cephas” — shows.

14,3 “And the day following,” it says, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee,
and hndeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of
Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” 62 (4) And you see that this leads
me to suppose — of the two disciples of John who had followed Jesus 63 he
gave only the name of the one, Andrew, but did not give the name of the
other. (5) This makes me think that, because they came from the same
place, lived together, had the same trade and worked together, this dis-
ciple whose name he did not give was either John or James, < but > one of
the sons of Zebedee. (6) For they should have been called first and then
Philip, according to the order which is given in the Gospels: Peter first,
then Andrew, then James, then John, and Philip after these. But never
mind this now; there is a great deal of followup to this matter.

15.1 But it is time to return to the subject < and point out* > that, as it is
plain to see, just as they < continued* > to practice their trade and attend
to their discipleship while they were disciples of John, so, after spending
their first day with Jesus, they went back the next day and fished, as the
wording of the other Gospels indicates. (2) For after Jesus left on the fol-
lowing day, the sequel [in John] says at once, "On the third day there was
a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And
Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.” 64 (3) But from both
these precise statements and the subject of them, we are given to under-
stand that Jesus had also brought other disciples who [unlike Peter and
the others] had remained with him — perhaps Nathanael and Philip, and
some others. Andrew and the rest had left, but those who had remained
with him were also invited to the wedding.

62 John 1:43-44.

63 I.e., at John 1:35.

64 John 2:1-2.

ALOGI

15,4 And after performing this first miracle he went down to Caper-
naum and made his home there. And then he began to perform other
miracles there — when he healed the man’s withered hand, and Peter’s
mother-in-law as well. (5) (Peter was from Bethsaida but had married a
woman from Capernaum, for the two places are not far apart. Jesus cured
Peter’s mother-in-law of fever and, because she was cured, she waited on
them, so that the sequence of events is < plain* >.)

15.6 And after this he returned to Nazareth where he had been brought
up. He then read the roll of the prophet Isaiah, and afterwards anticipated
them himself and said, “Ye will surely say unto me this parable, Physician,
heal thyself. What signs we have heard have been done in Capernaum, do
also here in thy country.” 65 And do you see the truthfulness of what fol-
lows? “And he did nothing 66 because of their unbelief.” 67

15.7 From there he went to Capernaum and settled there once more.
And going to the sea, as Matthew says, he saw Simon Peter and his brother
Andrew casting their nets — and, once again, James and John the sons of
Zebedee. And he called them for last time, and they finally threw their
nets away and followed him.

15.8 But Luke also indicates the certainty of the fact that they finally
followed him for good without postponing their call any more. For he
says, “When he was come unto the lake Gennesareth he saw Simon Peter
and Andrew mending their nets, and he entered into the ship which was
Simon Peter’s and Andrew’s” — but this shows that they allowed this from
habit since he was already acquainted with them — and he boarded it and
sat down, (g) When he told Peter, after his teaching, “Launch out into the
deep and let down your nets,” 68 and they said, “Master” 69 — these men
who had previously heard John say, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world” 70 and had spent one day with him were already
calling Jesus “Master” because of John’s testimony. (10) And they went out
for their second catch, the later one, when they were amazed at the num-
ber of the fish, and Peter said, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O
Lord.” 71 (For perhaps, indeed, he was penitent because of his having been
called before and returning to his fish and the whole business of fishing.)

65 Cf. Luke 4:23.

66 MSS and Delahaye ouSev, Holl ouSev <cry)[iEiov>.

67 Cf. Matt 13:58; Mark 6:5.

68 Cf. Luke 5:1-4.

69 Luke 5:4-5.

70 John 1:29.

71 Luke 5:8.

ALOGI

(11) But to hearten him Jesus said, “Fear not”; he had not been rejected but
could still lay claim to his call. For Jesus said, “From henceforth thou shalt
be a fisher of men” 72 when they motioned their partners in the other boat
to come and help with the catch. (12) For as it says, they were Simon’s
partners; I have mentioned this already because of the two who had fol-
lowed Jesus < and > heard John say, < “Behold the Lamb of God.” > 73 One
of these two was Andrew, < as > I said, and I have a very good notion that
the other, in turn, might have been one of the sons of Zebedee, because
they were co-workers, in the same business, and partners.

15,13 And then, as it says, after all this the four left their boats and sim-
ply threw everything down and followed him, as Luke testifies. (14) And
thus it is fully demonstrated that there is no obscurity or contradiction in
the holy Gospels or between the evangelists, but that everything is plain.
(15) There are, however, differences of time. For from this time forward,
after Peter, John and the others had finally joined and followed him, he
went teaching throughout Galilee and Judaea. And then, as the Gospel
became widespread, he performed the rest of the miracles. Thus the over-
all order of events is this:

16,1 First, he was baptized on the twelfth of the Egyptian month Athyr,
the sixth before the Ides of November of the Roman calendar. 74 (In other
words, he was baptized a full sixty days before the Epiphany, which is the
day of his birth in the flesh, (2) as the Gospel according to Luke testifies,
“Jesus began to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son
of Joseph.” 75 Actually, he was twenty-nine years and ten months old —
thirty years old but not quite — when he came for his baptism. This is
why it says, “began to be about thirty years old.” Then he was sent into
the wilderness.

16,3 Those forty days of the temptation appear next, and the slightly
more than two weeks — [two weeks] and two days — which he spent after
his return from the temptation to Galilee, that is, to Nazareth and its vicin-
ity. (4) And one day when he went to John — the day John said, “Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” 76 And the
next day < when > "John, again, stood, and two of his disciples, and look-

72 Luke 5:10.

73 John 1:29.

74 Holl 0 eoriv xara Pw^aiouc;, MSS to; E<pv]fXEv.

75 Luke 3:23.

76 John 1:29.

ALOGI

ing upon Jesus as he walked, said, Behold the Christ, the Lamb of God.” 77
Then it says, "The two disciples heard him and followed Jesus.” 78

16,5 As I said, this was the eighteenth day after the temptation, but
the first after [Jesus’ encounter with] John, when Andrew and the oth-
ers followed Jesus and stayed with him that day — it was about the tenth
hour — and when Andrew found his brother Simon and brought him to
Jesus. (6) Then the Gospel says, “On the morrow the Lord would go forth
into Galilee, and hndeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.” 79 As the
sequence of the Gospel indicates, this was the nineteenth day after the
temptation, < and it includes* > the call of Philip and Nathanael.

16,7 And then, it says, there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee on
the third day after the two days I have mentioned which followed [the
encounter with] John. Now if the twenty days are added to the forty days
of the temptation, this makes two months. And when these are combined
with the ten months they make a year, that is to say, a full thirty years
from the birth of the Lord. (8) And we find that Christ performed his first
miracle, of the change of the water to wine, at the end of his thirtieth year,
as you must realize if you follow the Gospel passages closely. (9) And then,
after this first miracle, he performed the other miracles and presented
his teaching, in token of his wondrous, inexpressible lovingkindness to
all, and the wonderworking in the Gospels — so 1 have often been obliged
to say because of the ignorance of the misguided people who venture to
contradict the Gospels’ accurate account, as it is set forth in order by the
Holy Spirit.

17,1 Such an amount of accurate demonstration will leave no room for
those who are their own opponents — I won’t say, the truth’s, because they
can’t be. (2) For it is plain from the start that everything else follows the
baptism. Thus it is shown that the Lord underwent the forty day tempta-
tion in the wilderness after the day of the baptism, even though the Holy
Spirit saw no need to make this known through John; it had already been
indicated by the three evangelists. (3) And again, the other evangelists
were not concerned with the other matters, since each is assisted by each.
For when the truth is gathered from all the evangelists it is shown to be
one, and in no conflict with itself.

77 Cf. John 1:35-36.

78 John 1:37.

79 John 1:43.

ALOGI

17,4 For from that point — directly after the temptation, as I said, — he
went from the wilderness to Nazareth and stayed there, no disciple being
with him as yet. And from there he went down to John, and at once Peter
was called through Andrew, and Nathanael through Philip. (5) But even
though he sees that Andrew met Jesus first and then Peter was called, and
through Andrew at that, no one need waste his time on doubts about this
as well, and begin to be distressed about it. (6) The meeting with Andrew
came first because Andrew was younger in years than Peter. But later on,
in turn, at their final renunciation, this was at Peter’s instance. For he
was his brother’s mentor; and the Lord knew this, for he is God, under-
stands the inclinations of hearts, knows who is worthy to be ranked first,
and chose Peter for the head of his disciples, as has been plainly shown
everywhere.

17,7 Afterwards they came and stayed with him the first day, as 1 said,
they traveled on the second, and on the third day came the first miracle
while some disciples were with him — plainly not Andrew, Peter, James or
John, but Nathanael and Philip, and some others. (8) And next, after going
to Capernaum and returning to Nazareth, and going back to Capernaum
from there and working part of the miracles, he returned to Nazareth once
more and read the roll of the prophet Isaiah, where it says, “The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach
the Gospel to the poor,” 80 and so on. This took place some days after the
Epiphany.

17, g And after John’s arrest he returned to Capernaum and at last made
that his residence; and the final call of Peter, John and their brothers came
at this time, when Jesus came [to them] beside the lake of Gennesareth.
And thus the entire sequence of events [in the Gospels] is harmonized
and contains no contradictions; the whole Gospel account is completely
clear and has been given truthfully.

17,10 Then what has gotten into these people < who > have deceived
their own minds and spewed this sect out on the world, that they reject
the Gospel according to John? 1 was right to call their sect “Dumb”; they
will not accept the divine Word who came from on high, the Word
preached by John. (11) Not understanding the meaning of the Gospels they
say, “Why have the other evangelists said that Jesus fled to Egypt from
Herod, came back after his flight and remained at Nazareth, and then,
after receiving the baptism, went into the wilderness, and returned after

80 Luke 4:18.

ALOGI

that, and after his return began to preach? (18,1) But the Gospel [issued]
in John’s name lies,” they say. “After ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us’ 81 and a few other things, it says at once that there was a wed-
ding in Cana of Galilee.”

18,2 With their deliberate foolishness these people have not remem-
bered that John < himself >, after saying that the Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us — or in other words, became man — said that Jesus went
to John the Baptist at the Jordan and was baptized by him. (3) < For>
John himself testifies that John the Baptist said, ‘This is he of whom I
said unto you,” 82 “I saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove
and remaining on him,” 83 and, “This is he that taketh away the sin of the
world.” 84

18,4 You see that none of this is said from forgetfulness; John has omit-
ted the matters Matthew dealt with. There was no more need for these
things, but there was need for the full explanation, in reply to those who
believed that Jesus was called Christ and Son of God [only] from the
time of Mary, and [those who say that] he was originally a mere man but
received the title, “Son of God,” as a promotion in rank. (5) Thus in writ-
ing his account of Christ’s coming from above, John is concerned with
essentials — it is all important and essential, but the heavenly things are
more so. (6) But these people say that the Gospel according to John is non-
canonical because it did not mention these events — I mean the events of
the forty-day temptation — and they do not see fit to accept it, since they
are misguided about everything, and mentally blind.

19,1 The blessed John came fourth in the succession of evangelists. With
his brother James he was the first after Peter and Andrew in the order of
calling, but he was the last to issue a Gospel. He was not concerned to give
information which had been adequately set down before him, but pre-
ferred what had not been said to what had been, and discoursed < along
those lines >. (2) For Matthew begins with Abraham, but resumes his nar-
rative after its beginning, and two [undescribed] years after Christ’s birth.
Mark, however, begins at the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, but gives
< no > account of < the > interval after the beginning. And Luke added
a beginning before the beginning, his treatment of Elizabeth and Mary
before < they > conceived.

81 John 1:14.

82 John 1:30.

83 Cf. John 1:32.

84 Cf. John 1:29.

ALOGI

19.3 John, however, who was earlier in his calling than they but became
an evangelist later, confirms the events before the incarnation. For most
of what he said was spiritual, since the fleshly things had already been
confirmed. (4) He thus gives a spiritual account 85 of the Gift which came
down to us from the Father who has no beginning, < and > of the Father’s
good pleasure took flesh in the holy Virgin’s womb. (5) And he omitted
nothing essential; but by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration he < introduced >
the divine Word who was before all ages, begotten of the Father without
beginning and not in time, and told of his coming in the flesh for our
sakes. In this way we may obtain full and precise knowledge, fleshly and
divine, from four evangelists.

20,1 For when all the events of the baptism and temptation were over
and then, as 1 have often said, Jesus had gone to spend a few days’ < time >
in Nazareth and nearby, and near Capernaum — < and > after he had met
John at the Jordan < and returned to Galilee* >, taking a few disciples with
him on the next day [after his meeting with John] — Jesus performed this
first miracle in Cana, the third day after [he had met] John but the twen-
tieth after his return from the temptation, and < began > his preaching.
(2) For John does not say that Christ had gone to a wedding before the
temptation, or that he had worked any of his miracles < before > he started
preaching — except, perhaps, the ones he is said to have performed in play
as a child. (3) (For he ought to have childhood miracles too, to deprive the
other sects of an excuse for saying that “< the > Christ,” meaning the dove,
came to him after [his baptism in] the Jordan. 86 They say this because of
the sum of the letters alpha and omega, which is [the same as the sum
of the letters of] “dove,” since the Savior said, “1 am the Alpha and 1 am
the Omega.”) 87

20.4 This is also why Luke represents Jesus, in his twelfth year, as hav-
ing asked Mary, “Wist ye not that 1 must be in my Father’s house?” 88 when
she came looking for him, and he was engaged in dispute with the doctors
at Jerusalem. (5) This refutes the argument of those who claim that he
became the Son of God at the time of his baptism, when the dove, which
they say is the Christ, came to him. And it makes it clear that the divine
Word came from above and was made flesh of Mary at his coming, and

85 Clement of Alexandria says that John wrote a “spiritual” Gospel because the fleshly
matters had already been reported, Eus. H. E. 6.14.7.

86 Iren. Haer. 1.14.6.

87 Rev 1:8.

88 Luke 2:49.

ALOGI

that the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan, (6) to identify the One
of whom the Father testified, “This is my Son, the Beloved, hear ye him.” 89
ft was also a sign, to those who would be enlightened in him, that they
would be vouchsafed < the > gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and, by the
grace he has given, the remission of their sins.

21,1 And then he began to work all his miracles, during the time of his
preaching — < for > it says, “This first miracle did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.” 90
(2) As I have said many times, this was not before the baptism. It was after
his return from the temptation, the third day after the two days John’s two
disciples spent with him, the disciples who had heard [John] speak and
followed Jesus. (3) Thus, immediately after the two days they spent with
him, the Gospel adds, “And he went forth into Galilee and hndeth Philip,
and saith unto him, Follow me.” 91

21,4 Then immediately, on the third day there was a wedding in Cana
of Galilee. Since there was a wedding just after he had left Judaea, he was
rightly invited in its honor, as a blessing on marriage. (5) And it says, “On
the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of
Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called, and his disciples who were
with him, to the marriage. (6) And when they wanted wine,” it says,
“The mother of Jesus saith, They have no wine. And Jesus saith unto her,
Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” 92

21,7 < This took place* > after he came from the wilderness following
the temptation, and after he had been taken to Jerusalem and had stood
on the pinnacle of the temple, and had been borne from Jerusalem to a
very high mountain which many say is Mt. Tabor, or Itarbion in transla-
tion; this mountain is in Galilee. (8) For Matthew, who said, “Jesus, hear-
ing that John was cast into prison, departed into Galilee,” 93 assumed this
order of events. (9) Now Luke, who also accurately described the depar-
ture from the mountain and spoke first of the mountain and the kingdoms
the devil showed the Lord, mentions the pinnacle and Jerusalem later,
and how Jesus returned to Galilee and Nazareth. And Matthew says in
agreement with him, “Leaving Nazareth he went unto Capernaum.” 94

89 Matt 17:5.

90 John 2:11.

91 John 1:43.

92 John 2:1-4.

93 Cf. Matt 4:12.

94 Matt 4:13.

ALOGI

21,10 For he went to Nazareth and from there to the Jordan to visit
John, and after crossing the Jordan betook himself to his boyhood home,
to his mother at Nazareth, and stayed there (i.e., at the Jordan) for two
days, at which time Andrew and the others also stayed with him. Then,
for the salvation of mankind, he was moved to begin preaching; (n) and
because he had come [there] after an interval he stayed two days, accom-
panied by the disciples he had taken by then. And dismissing the two who
had followed him he went to Galilee at once, to preach and work the first
miracle, the one he performed at the wedding.

21,12 For see how the wording assures < us > of this, when John the
Baptist gives his testimony, and says as of an event already in the past,
“And I knew him not, but he who sent me to baptize said, unto me, Upon
whom thou seest the Spirit descending in the form of a dove, the same is
he.” 95 (13) For when the Father sent John to baptize he granted him this
sign, so that, when he saw it, he would recognize the Savior and Benefac-
tor of our souls, who had been sent to the world from on high.

21,14 Sectarians like these are confounded by the truth and accuracy
of the sacred scriptures, especially by the agreement of the four Gospels.
No one in his right mind would reject the fully accurate account the Holy
Spirit has given through the sacred Gospels. (15) For even though they
say that the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke reported that the Savior
was brought to the wilderness after his baptism, and that he spent forty
days in temptation, and after the temptation heard of John’s imprison-
ment and went to live at Capernaum by the sea — (16) but [then go on to
say] that John is lying because he did not speak of this but straight off of
the Savior’s visit to John [the Baptist] and all the other things John says
he did 96 — [even if this is their argument], their entire ignorance of the
Gospels’ exact words will be evident. (17) John the Evangelist indicates
that before the arrest of John the Baptist the Lord went to him < again* >
after the days of the temptation. If John had been imprisoned, how could
the Savior still return to him at the Jordan?

21,18 Nor do they realize that the other three evangelists give an accu-
rate account of the time after John’s imprisonment by saying, “Jesus,
hearing that John was cast into prison, departing from Nazareth dwelt in
Capernaum which is on the seacoast.” 97 And you see that everything is
said in truthful agreement by the four evangelists.

95 John 1:33.

96 MSS Xeyei; Holl’s <8iv)yeTT0ii> Xeycov appears unnecessary.

97 Matt 4:14.

ALOGI

21, ig For John is plainly < following > the [other evangelists’] order
when he says in turn that, after the Savior had performed the first mira-
cle, gone to Capernaum and performed certain miracles there, and gone
back to Nazareth and read the scroll, then finally, when John the Baptist
was imprisoned, he went and lived at Capernaum for “not many days.”
(20) These are the “days” after the Epiphany, and after Christ’s journey to
Capernaum and Nazareth, his pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover,
and < his > return to John, where John was baptizing at Aenon < near >
Salim. (21) For the Gospel says, “After this he went down to Capernaum,
he and his mother and his brethren, and they remained there not many
days .” 98 He was not yet telling us ofjesus’ final residence [at Capernaum],
of which he said later < that> after John’s imprisonment he went to live at
Capernaum by the sea.

21,22 “And the Passover of the Jews was nigh,” as he says, “and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem, and found the sellers of oxen, sheep and doves
in the temple, and the changers of money sitting.” 99 (23) And after
expelling these money-changers and dove-sellers and the rest and say-
ing, “Take these things hence and make not my Father’s house an house
of merchandise” — and after hearing their answer, “What sign showest
thou us, seeing that thou doest these things?” and telling them, “Destroy
this temple, and in three days 1 will raise it up” 100 — (it was at this time
that Nicodemus came to him) — and after saying a great deal, John says,
(24) “Jesus came, and his disciples, to Judaea, and there he tarried with
them and baptized. And John also was < baptizing > in Aenon near
to Salim, for there was much water there; for John was not yet cast into
prison .” 101

21,25 And after John has said a great deal — “He that hath the bride is
the bridegroom,” 102 [and so on] — the Gospel then says, ‘When therefore
Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples < than > John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his
disciples), he left Judaea and departed again into Galilee. (26) And he
must needs pass through Samaria.” 103 This was the occasion when he sat
by the well and talked with the Samaritan woman. And the Samaritan
woman told the townsmen about him, and the Samaritans came to him

98 John 2:12.

99 John 2:14.

100 John 2:16; 18-19.

101 John 3:22-24.

102 John 3:29.

103 John 4:1-4.

ALOGI

and begged him to stay with them, “and he stayed there two days, and
many more believed because of his word.” 104

21.27 “Now after the two days he came into Galilee. And there was a
certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.” 105 This was when
Jesus told him, “Go, thy son liveth,” 106 and he believed, and the boy was
healed. And the Gospel says, “< This > is again the second miracle that
Jesus did when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.” 107

21.28 “After this there was a feast of the Jews” — I presume he is speak-
ing of another feast of the Jews, Pentecost or Tabernacles — “and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem.” 108 This was when he came to the Sheep Pool on
the Sabbath, and healed the paralytic who had been ill for thirty-eight
years. (2g) And after this, the acceptable year now being over, they began
to persecute him, from the time when he healed the paralytic at the Sheep
Pool on the Sabbath. John says in turn, The Jews persecuted Jesus the
more, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but also said that God
was his Father, making himself equal with God.” 109 (30) How can the sects
which make the Son inferior to the Father escape condemnation? “Mak-
ing himself equal with God,” says the Gospel.

21,31 “After these things Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee, which is
the Sea of Tiberias, and a great multitude followed him because they saw
the miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up
into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the Passover,
the feast of the Jews, was < nigh >.” 110 (32) And now, as the other Gospels
say, when John had been imprisoned Jesus came and made his home in
Capernaum by the sea, as we find that John himself says in agreement
with the others. For as the Passover comes in the month of March or April,
it is perfectly plain that the times at which Jesus came to John after the
temptation were different times [than this].

22,1 Again, they also accuse the holy evangelist — or rather, they accuse
the Gospel itself — because, they say, “John said that the Savior kept two
Passovers over a two-year period, but the other evangelists describe one
Passover.” (2) The boors do not even know that the Gospels not only

104 Cf. John 4:39-41.

105 John 4:46.

106 John 4:50.

107 John 4:54.

108 John 5:1.

109 John 5:18.

110 John 6:1-4.

ALOGI

acknowledge two Passovers as I have shown repeatedly, but that they
speak of two earlier Passovers, and of that other Passover as well, on which
the Savior suffered, — so that there are three Passovers, from the time of
Christ’s baptism and first preaching, over three years, until the cross.

22,3 For the Savior was born during the forty-second year of the Roman
emperor Augustus — in the thirteenth consulship of the same Octavian
Augustus and the consulship of Silanus, as the Roman consul lists indi-
cate. (4) For these say as follows: “During their consulships,” I mean Octa-
vian’s thirteenth and the consulship of Silanus, “Christ was born on the
eighth before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the winter solstice
and the increase of the light and the day.” 111 (5) Greeks, I mean the idola-
ters, celebrate this day on the eighth before the Kalends of January, which
Romans call Saturnalia, Egyptians Cronia, and Alexandrians, Cicellia.
(6) For this division between signs of the zodiac, which is a solstice,
comes on the eighth before the Kalends of January, and the day begins
to lengthen because the light is receiving its increase. And it completes a
period of thirteen days until the eighth before the Ides of January, the day
of Christ’s birth, with a thirtieth of an hour added to each day. (7) The Syr-
ian sage, Ephrem, testified to this calculation in his commentaries when
he said, “Thus the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth in the flesh
or perfect incarnation which is called the Epiphany, was revealed after a
space of thirteen days from the beginning of the increase of the light. For
this too must needs be a type of the number of our Lord Jesus Christ and
his twelve disciples, since, [added to the disciples], he made up <the>
number of the thirteen days of the light’s increase.” 112

22.8 And how many other things have been done and are being done
because of, and in testimony to this calculation, I mean of Christ’s birth?
Indeed, those who guilefully preside over the cult of idols are obliged to
confess a part of the truth, and in many places deceitfully celebrate a
very great festival on the very night of the Epiphany, to deceive the idola-
ters who believe them into hoping 113 in the imposture and not seeking
the truth.

22.9 First, at Alexandria, in the Coreum, as they call it; it is a very large
temple, the shrine of Core. They stay up all night singing hymns to the

111 Consularia Constantia, MHG Auct. Antiq. IX, 218. Here, however, the date given is
the eighth before the Kalends of January, i.e., December 25.

112 The passage is not extant.

113 Achelis: eXthototes. We prefer MSS: eXmawrap, in agreement with siScoXoXctTpac;.

ALOGI

idol with a flute accompaniment. And when they have concluded their
nightlong vigil torchbearers descend into an underground shrine after
cockcrow (ro) and bring up a wooden image which is seated naked < on >
a litter, ft has a sign of the cross inlaid with gold on its forehead, two other
such signs, [one] on each hand, and two other signs, [one] actually [on
each of] its two knees — altogether five signs with a gold impress. And
they carry the image itself seven times round the innermost shrine with
flutes, tambourines and hymns, hold a feast, and take it back down to its
place underground. And when you ask them what this mystery means
they reply that today at this hour Core — that is, the virgin — gave birth
to Aeon.

22, n This is also done in the same way in the city of Petra, in the temple
of the idol there. (Petra is the capital city of Arabia, the scriptural Edom.)
They praise the virgin with hymns in the Arab language calling her, in
Arabic, Chaamu — that is, Core, or virgin. And the child who is born of her
they call Dusares, that is, “the Lord’s only-begotten.” And this is also done
that night in the city of Elusa, as it is there in Petra, and in Alexandria.

22, r2 I have been obliged to prove this with many examples because
of those who do not believe that “The Epiphany” is a good name for the
fleshly birth of the Savior, who was born at the eighth hour and mani-
fested, by the angels’ testimony, to the shepherds and the world — but he
was manifested to Mary and Joseph as well. (r3) And the star was mani-
fested to the magi in the east at that hour, two years before their arrival
at Jerusalem and Bethlehem, when Herod asked the magi themselves the
precise time of the star’s manifestation, and they told him it was no more
than two years before. And this very word gave the Epiphany its name,
from Herod’s saying, “the manifestation of the star.” (14) Thus when the
magi said, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his
star in the east and are come to worship him,” 114 Herod saw that he had
not been inquiring about the name of a merely human king.

2245 For he mulled the matter over and was puzzled because many
kings had been born in Jerusalem — Saul of the tribe of Benjamin first,
David of the tribe of Judah second, David’s son Solomon, Solomon’s son
Rehoboam, and Rehoboam’s sons in succession — and no star had ever
appeared at any of their births, and never, except this once, had magi
arrived to come and worship the newborn king. And after giving this his
consideration he attained to the knowledge of the truth as well, having

114 Matt 2:2.

ALOGI

understood that this was not the sign of a man, but of the Lord alone.
(16) Thus, when he asked the scribes and the priests, “Where is the Christ
born?” and heard their answer, "in Bethlehem of Judaea,” 115 he was no
longer asking about an earthly king or a mere man, but about Christ. And
he learned the place by asking it of them, but the time by asking it of the
magi.

22,17 For the magi themselves reached Bethlehem, after a two year
interval, on this very day of the Epiphany, and offered their gifts, the
myrrh, the gold and the frankincense. For the beginnings of many of the
signs of Christ’s manifestation came on this day of the Manifestation.
(18) As I have said before and am obliged to say over and over, this was the
day in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius Augustus and the consulship
of Silanus [which fell] on the eighth before the Ides of January, thirteen
days after the increase of the daylight. This lasts from the winter solstice,
the eighth before the Kalends of January, until the actual day of Christ’s
birth and Manifestation, because of the type I spoke of — the Savior him-
self and his disciples, making thirteen.

22,19 Thus the Savior was born in the forty-second year of the Roman
emperor Augustus in the consulship I have mentioned, twenty-nine years
after Augustus’ annexation of Judaea; Augustus had reigned for thirteen
years before Judaea was finally annexed to Rome. (20) After Augustus’
accession there was an alliance between the Romans and the Jews for
about four years of his reign, with the dispatch of an auxiliary force, the
appointment of a governor, and the payment of partial tribute to the
Romans. < And again, partial tribute was given to the Romans* > for about
five years [more], until Judaea was surrendered to them completely and
became [fully] tributary to them, (21) because the rulers descended from
Judah had come to an end, and Herod had been made king — a gentile,
though indeed a proselyte. And then Christ was born in Bethlehem of
Judaea and began to preach, after the last of the anointed rulers (xp!c7toi)
descended from Judah and Aaron had come to an end — (their line had
continued until the anointed ruler Alexander, and Salina, or Alexandra.)
This was the fulfillment of Jacob’s prophecy, “There shall not fail a ruler
from Judah and a governor from his loins, till he come for who it is pre-
pared, and he is the expectation of the nations” 116 — a reference to the
birth of the Lord.

115 Cf. Matt 2:4-5.

116 Gen 49:10.

ALOGI

22,22 All these things were accomplished beginning with Christ’s birth
in Bethlehem, in the forty-second year of the whole reign of Augustus.
Augustus’ forty-second year came after [the following]: The fifth year of
the governorship of Herod’s father Antipater, when there was an alliance
between the Romans and the Jews and the payment of partial tribute;
Antipater’s governorship, from the sixth year of Augustus through his
ninth year; Herod’s appointment in Augustus’ tenth year, and the payment
of partial tribute until Augustus’ thirteenth, which was the fourth year of
the reign of his appointee, Herod; (23) the period from Herod’s fourth
year, which finally saw the complete surrender of Judaea, until Herod’s
thirty-third year, when Augustus had reigned for forty-two < and >, as I
said, all Judaea had been subdued. [This came] after it had been tributary
to the Romans for twenty-nine years; after Herod’s father Antipater had
been made governor; and after Herod had been made king of Judaea by
Augustus in Augustus’ tenth year.

22,24 i. These things (i.e., Christ’s birth and the fulfillment of Jacob’s
prophecy) came about in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius Augustus
and the consulship of Silanus, as 1 have often said. The consulships listed
below succeeded that consulship in order, as follows. 117 [The consulships] of:

2. Lentulus and Piso

3. Lucius Caesar and Paulus

4. Vindicius and Varus

5. Lamius and Servilius Nonnius

6. Magnus Pompeius and Valerius

7. Lepidus and Aruncius

8. Caesar and Capita

9. Creticus and Nerva

10. Camillus and Quintillian

11. Camerus and Sabinus

12. Dolabella and Silanus

13. Lepidus and Taurus

14. Flaccus and Silanus

15. The two Sexti

16. Pompeius Magnus and Apuleius

17. Brutus and Flaccus

117 Epiphanius’ list of consuls is in close agreement with the Christian list given in the
Consularia Constantia and the Chronicon Paschale, Monumenta Historiae Germanica
Auctores Antiqua IX, 218-220 and XI 197-199.

ALOGI

18. Taurus and Libo

19. Crassus and Rufus

20. Tiberius Caesar for the second time, and Drusus Germanicus for
the second time

21. Silanus and Balbus

22. Messala and Gratus

23. Tiberius Caesar for the third time, and Drusus Germanicus for the
third time

24. Agrippa and Galba

25. Pollio and Veterus

26. Cethegus and Varus

27. Agrippa for the second time, and Lentulus Galba

28. Getulicus and Sabinus

29. Crassus and Piso

30. Silanus and Nerva

23,1 And you see that this is a period of thirty years. I have done my
best to give an accurate list of the successive consulships, so that those
who go over it will see that there is no falsehood in the sacred doctrine of
the truth, but that everything has been proclaimed with accuracy by the
church. (2) For who can count the successive consulships, which cannot
be wrong, and not despise those who believe that there is a discrepancy in
the number of the years which is celebrated by the evangelists?

23,3 This is also the downfall of the earlier Valentinian sect and certain
others, with their fictitious record of the thirty aeons they thought they
could compare with the years of the Savior’s life, supposedly making it
possible for them to record the myth of their aeons and first principles.
(4) For in fact, it was in the thirty-third year of his incarnation that the
Only-begotten suffered for us — the divine Word from on high who was
impassible, and yet < took > flesh < and > suffered for us to cancel our
sentence of death. (5) For after that consulship which came, as I indi-
cated, in Christ’s thirtieth year, there was another, called the consulship
of Rufus and Rubellio. And then, at the beginning of the consulship after
the consulship < of Rufus and > Rubellio — the one which later came to
be called the consulship of Vinnicius and Longinus Cassius — the Savior
accepted suffering on the thirteenth before the Kalends of April < in his
thirty-third year, which was* > the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.
(6) And this confounds the deceit of all these sectarians. The accurate
teaching is plainly that the Gospels contain not only two periods before a
festival of the Passover, but even three.

ALOGI

24,1 For Christ was born in the month of January, that is, on the eighth
before the Ides of January — in the Roman calendar this is the evening of
January fifth, at the beginning of January sixth. In the Egyptian calendar it
is the eleventh of Tybi. In the Syrian or Greek it is the sixth of Audynaeus.
In the Cypriote or Salaminian it is the fifth day of the fifth month. In the
Paphian it is the fourteenth of July. In the Arabian it is the twenty-first
of Aleom. < In the Macedonian it is the sixteenth of Apellaeus. > 118 In the
Cappadocian it is the thirteenth of Atartes. In the Athenian it is the fifth
of Maemacterium. And in the Hebrew calendar it is the fifth of Tebeth.
(2) For in this case too the prophet’s oracle had to be fulfilled, “There came
unto us the ark of the Lord” — but he means Christ’s perfect manhood —
“on the fifth day of the fifth month.” 119 (3) This had to be fulfilled first by
the Hebrew reckoning, by the following of which many of the gentiles,
I mean the Romans, observe the fifth day in the evening preceding the
sixth. But the Cypriotes keep the fifth of the month itself; and the native
Egyptians, and the Salaminians, observe that month as the fifth, just as the
Hebrews make it the fifth month from their New Year.

24,4 Christ had lived through these twenty-nine full consulships, but in
the thirtieth consulship, I mean < the consulship of Silanus and Nerva* >,
he came to John in about the < eleventh > month, and was baptized
in the river Jordan in the thirtieth year following his birth in the flesh,

(5) on the sixth before the Ides of November. That is, he was baptized on
the twelfth of the Egyptian month Athyr, the eighth of the Greek month
of Dius, the sixth of third Choiak in the Salaminian, or Constantian cal-
endar, the sixteenth of Apogonicus in the Paphian, the twenty-second of
Angalthabaith in the Arabian, the sixteenth of Apellaeus in the Macedo-
nian, the fifteenth of Aratates in the Cappadocian, the seventh of Metagit-
nium in the Athenian, and the seventh of Marcheshvan in the Hebrew.

(6) As I have often remarked, the holy Gospel according to Luke bears me
out with some such words as, “Jesus began to be about thirty years old,
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.” 120

24,7 From this day, the twelfth of Athyr, he “preached the acceptable
year of the Lord” as had been foretold in the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of
the Lord is upon me, for the Lord hath anointed me to preach the Gospel

118 Klostermann’s restoration, based on 24,5.

119 This may be a faultily remembered version of Zech 7:3.

120 Luke 3:23.

ALOGI

to the poor. He hath sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery
of sight to the blind, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord and the
day of retribution.” 121

25,1 For he indeed preached an acceptable year of the Lord, that is, a
year without opposition. He preached for the first year after < the > thirti-
eth year of his incarnation, and everyone accepted his preaching. Neither
Jews nor gentiles nor Samaritans disputed it; all were glad to hear him.
(2) In this year he went up to Jerusalem, after being baptized and passing
the forty days of the temptation, and the twenty days prior to the first
miracle, which I have spoken of, and the choosing of his disciples. (3) It is
plain that, after returning to the Jordan from the temptation, and crossing
the Sea of Tiberias and going to Nazareth, he went up to Jerusalem and,
midway through the feast, cried out, “If anyone thirst, let him come to me
and drink.” 122 And then he went to Nazareth, Judaea, Samaria and Tyre.

25,4 And at the close of the first year he went up to Jerusalem again,
and now they tried to arrest him during the feast and were afraid to;
at this feast he said, "I go not up at this feast.” 123 (5) He was not lying,
never fear! It says, “He set out midway through the festival and went up
to Jerusalem, 124 and they said, Is not this he whom they sought to arrest?
And lo, he speaketh boldly. Have the priests, then, learned that this is the
Christ?” 125 (6) For because he was speaking mysteriously with his breth-
ren, and in supernatural terms, they did not know what he meant. He
was telling them that he would not go up to heaven at that feast, or go to
the cross then to accomplish the work of the passion and the mystery of
redemption, and rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. All these things
he accomplished at his own discretion.

25,7 And finally after this, at the close of the two year period which
followed his baptism and his birthday, in November [for the former]
and January [for the latter] — in the thirty-third year of his incarnation,
after living through the two consulships I have mentioned, those of the
two Gemini and of Rufus and Rubellio, (8) the impassible divine Word
accomplished the mystery of his passion in the third consulship, in its
third month, in March after January. He suffered in the flesh for us while

121 Cf. Isa 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19.

122 John 7:14; 27.

123 John 7:8.

124 John 7:14.

125 Cf. John 7:25-27.

ALOGI

retaining his impassibility, as Peter says, “being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit.” 126

26,1 Jesus suffered on the thirteenth before the Kalends of April, the
Jews meanwhile having skipped one evening, that is, at midnight on the
fourteenth of the month. 127 (2) For the Jews came ahead of time and ate
the Passover, as the Gospel says 128 and I have often remarked. They thus
ate the Passover two days before its < proper* > eating; that is, they ate
it in the evening on the third day of the week, a thing that ought to be
done at evening on the fifth day. 129 For on that basis 130 the fourteenth of
the month was the fifth day of the week, [when the Passover should have
been eaten].

26,3 But Jesus was arrested late on that same third day, which was
the nighttime of the eleventh of the month, the sixteenth before the
Kalends of April. 131 The dawning of the fourth day 132 of the week was the
nighttime of the [Jewish] twelfth day of the month, the fifteenth before
the Kalends of April. The daytime of the thirteenth day of the month 133
was the fifth day of the week, but the [ensuing] nighttime was the four-
teenth of the month, the fourteenth before the Kalends of April. 134 The
daytime of the fourteenth of the month was the eve of the Sabbath, the

126 1 Pet. 3:17.

127 Following Strobel’s understanding (pp. 305-309) of the situation envisaged by
Epiphanius, and reading the text without Holl’s restorations. Epiphanius seems to have
believed that the Jews, as a calendar correction, dropped the six hours between 6pm and
midnight on the Jewish fifth day of the week, our Thursday night. Following this alleged
calendar correction the Jewish fifth day of the week, and the days following, would begin
at midnight, Roman fashion, rather than in the Jewish manner, at nightfall. The resurrec-
tion would then be dated at the midnight between the equinox and the day of the equinox,
not only by the Roman calendar but also by the now corrected Jewish calendar.

Not only Holl, but others scholars emend or restore Epiphanius to make his work cor-
rect. Strobel keeps Epiphanius’ text, on the assumption that the position he takes is artifi-
cial, and intended to reconcile Quartodecimans to the Easter decision of Nicaea.

128 Epiphanius means Matt. 26:2.

129 Cf. Didascalia 21 (Achelis-Flemming p. in; Stewart-Sykes p. 214).

130 I.e., oCtco?, if all had been done right.

131 Cf. Didascalia 21 (Achelis-Flemming p. in; Stewart-Sykes p. 214). In other words,
Jesus was arrested on our Tuesday night. However, the “nighttime of the eleventh of the
month” should mean Wednesday night; Epiphanius, or the text, is confused here. Epipha-
nius might have read the phrase, “late on the third day,” in his version of the Didascalia,
and taken it as synonymous with “nighttime of the eleventh” (Schmidt, p. 691).

132 I.e., the period between 6pm and midnight on our Wednesday.

133 I.e., 6am-6pm on our Thursday.

134 I.e., the calendar correction has now been made, and the Jewish 14 Nisan now begins
at midnight on the Roman thirteenth before the Kalends, our Friday.

ALOGI

thirteenth before the Kalends of April. The daytime of the fifteenth of the
month 135 was the Sabbath, the twelfth before the Kalends of April.

26.4 The dawning of the Lord’s Day was [the end of] the nighttime of
the fifteenth of the month. 136 That was the illumination of hades, earth and
heaven and the < time of the equality > the night and the day, reckoned
[both] because of the (Jewish] fifteenth of the month and because of the
course of the sun; for the resurrection and the equinox < came > [at mid-
night] on the eleventh before the Kalends of April. As I said, < the Jews >
were mistaken about this, and made sure that one day was skipped. 137

26.5 Now the exact computation [of the lunar year] contains some
[double-] hours, 138 and comes out even every third year, making a differ-
ence of one day in their calculations. (6) For they add four other [double-]
hours per year to the moon’s course after its 354 days, making one [addi-
tional] day every three years. (7) And so they intercalate five months in
fourteen years because the one [double-]hour is subtracted from the sun’s
course of 365 days and three [double-] hours; for, with the hours added,
the final result is 365 days less one [double] -hour.

26,8 And so, because they multiply the fourteen years by six every
eighty-four years, they intercalate one month in the eighty-fifth year, so
that there are thirty-one [intercalary] months every eighty-five years; but
by exact reckoning there ought to be thirty-one months, twenty-four 139
days, and three [double]-hours. (27,1) The Jews were wrong at that time for
this reason; not only did they eat the Passover two days early because they
were disturbed, but they also added the one day they had skipped, since
they were mistaken in every way. But the revelation of the truth has done
everything for our salvation with the utmost precision. (2) Thus when the
Savior himself had finished the Passover he went out into the mount “with
intense desire” 140 after eating it. (3) And yet he ate that Jewish Passover

135 In accordance with the calendar correction, the Jewish 14 Nisan now begins at mid-
night on the Roman thirteenth before the Kalends, our Friday.

136 In accordance with the calendar correction, the Jewish 15 Nisan now ends at mid-
night on the Roman fifteenth before the Kalends, our Saturday/Sunday.

137 According to 26,1, this should be “one evening,” i.e., nighttime. Epiphanius has erred,
is speaking loosely, or misunderstands the Didascalia, see note 131.

138 The following explains, in some sense, both the calendar correction and the eating
of the Passover in advance. Without these, the moment of the equinox would have been
midnight on the 16 Nisan, not coincident with the equinox. For discussion, see Strobel.

139 Strobel and Codex Urbinas: x§; Codex Marcianus Venetus: xa; Strobel suggests that
both are mistranscriptions of an original xy.

140 Luke 22:15; he., desire to eat the real Passover.

ALOGI

with the disciples, and did nothing different. He himself kept it the same
as the others, so as not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.

27.4 And so, after completing his thirtieth year in which he was bap-
tized, and after completing his thirty-first by preaching for an entire
“acceptable year” without opposition, but [then] preaching another year
with opposition, to the accompaniment of persecution and hatred; and
after completing [part of] another year after it, 141 a full seventy-four days
from his birthday, — (the Epiphany, (5) January 5 at the dawn of Janu-
ary 6 and the eleventh of the Egyptian month Tybi) — until the thirteenth
before the Kalends of April, as 1 said, < on that same thirteenth before the
Kalends of April*, > the twenty-fourth of the Egyptian month Phamenoth,
he had attained a full thirty-two years, plus seventy-four days from the
Epiphany. (6) And he rose on the twenty-sixth of the Egyptian month
Phamenoth — (this was the day after the equinox and was preceded by
the night and the equinox) — the day which followed the twenty-fifth of
Phamenoth, the eleventh before the Kalends of April, < and appeared to
his disciples. > This makes liars of all who are not sons of the truth.

28,1 Valentinus, first of all, is at once < exposed > as a fantasist, since
he expects < to prove* > to us, from the years of the Savior’s rearing and
coming to manhood, that there are thirty aeons. He does not realize that
the Savior did not live for only thirty years. (2) He was baptized in his
thirtieth year at the age of twenty-nine years and ten months, on the
twelfth of Athyr, as I said, the sixth before the Ides of November. And
then, following his baptism which was < sixty days > before his birthday,
< he passed* > an acceptable year of the Lord in preaching, and another
year, of opposition, after < the first* > year, 142 and [finally] seventy-four
days of opposition. (3) Thus all the years of his incarnation, from his birth
until his passion, amounted to thirty-two years and seventy-four days. But
there were two years and 134 days (sic!) 143 from the start < of his preaching
in* > the consulship of Silanus and Nerva. And Valentinus stands refuted,
and the many who are as foolish as he.

28.4 The ones who reject John’s Gospel have also been refuted. (I may
rightly call them “Dumb,” since they reject the Word of God — the Father’s
Word who was proclaimed by John, and who came down from heaven
and wrought salvation for us < by > the whole of his advent in the flesh.)

141 Klostermann gsT cxutov, MSS and Holl gET& touto.

142 Holl gETa tov irpoiTov eviauTov, Klostermann gETa touto.

143 This should be two years and 14 days. Cf. 16,1-9.

ALOGI

(5) For from the consulships, the years, the witness of the prophet Isaiah,
the Gospel according to Luke, the Gospel according to John, the Gospel
according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark — in short, the mis-
guided people have been refuted from every source, (6) since Christ did
not live to see just one Passover over the period of a year from the start
of his preaching, but actually lived through the periods of a little less than
three consulships after his baptism by John. (7) And the nitwits’ fallacious
argument has failed < because it is* > full of silliness, and of an ignorance
that not only fails to recognize its own salvation, but even futilely makes
a lying war on the truth.

2g,i For I have also found it written somewhere < in > these works that
the Word of God was born about the fortieth year of Augustus. This was
the writer’s error, or else he wrote only “forty (p) years” because the figure
“beta” had been erased and only the “mu” was left on the page. For Christ
was born in the forty-second year of Augustus.

2g,2 And it says that Christ < was conceived > on the twelfth before the
Kalends of July or June — I cannot say which — in the consulship of Sulp-
icius Cammarinus and Betteus Pompeianus. 144 (3) I have noticed < too >
that those who have given a date for the conception, and Gabriel’s bring-
ing of the tidings to the Virgin, have said < this because of > a supposition
of certain persons who have it by tradition 145 that Christ was born after a
term of seven months. (4) For I have found that there is a time of seven
lunar months less four days between the month they mention 146 and the
eleventh of Tybi, the eighth before the Ides of January, when, in fact, the
Epiphany came and Christ was born. (5) So if you should find < this > in
a marginal gloss somewhere, do not be misled by the information. The
actual date of Christ’s birth is in fact the eleventh of Tybi.

2g,6 Some, however, say that Christ was carried in the womb for ten
months less fourteen days and eight hours, making nine months, fifteen
days and four hours. They are alluding to Solomon’s saying, "compacted
in blood for a time of ten months.” 147

2g,7 In any case, < it has been shown > by every means < that > the
Lord’s birth in the flesh took place on < the > eleventh of the Egyptian

144 This name is inaccurate and is ungrammatically placed in the dative while Sulpicius
Cammarinus is in the genitive; it may be interpolated (Strobel, Dummer).

145 Holl iyovruv iv napo'Sctra, MSS Xeyov-rav sv 7rapaScJc7£i.

146 Holl 7rpoEipvjp£vou p)vop, MSS nponoum.

147 Wisd Sol 7:2.

ALOGI

month Tybi. And the first miracle in Cana of Galilee, when the water was
made wine, was performed on about the same eleventh day thirty years
later. (30,1) And even to this day this happens in many places as a testi-
mony to unbelievers because of the miracle which was wrought at that
time, as streams and rivers in many localities testify by being changed
to wine. (2) The stream at Cibyre, the chief city of Caria, [bears witness]
at the same time of day at which the servants drew the water and Christ
said, “Give it to the governor of the feast.” 148 And the stream at Gerasa
in Arabia testifies in the same way. have drunk from the < one at >
Cibyre < myself >, and my brethren have drunk from the stream in the
martyrium at Gerasa. (3) And in Egypt too many give this testimony of the
Nile. Thus in Egypt itself, and in many countries, everyone draws water on
the eleventh of the Egyptian month Tybi, and stores it up.

30,4 And so we see that after the twelfth of Athyr, when he had gone
away and been tempted for forty days, and [then] come to Nazareth and
stayed there for about two weeks and three days, he [next] went down to
the Jordan to see John and spent a first day there, and a second; and [then
he] returned to Nazareth, and likewise stayed there for a first and a sec-
ond day. (5) And on the third day he went to Cana of Galilee. This makes
a total of sixty days after the baptism: the forty days of the temptation; the
two weeks < and two days > at Nazareth, and the other two; and on the
third day the miracle of the water was performed at the wedding. 149

30,6 After that he came to Capernaum and performed other miracles
as 1 have said many times, and [then] returned to Nazareth again and read
the roll of Isaiah the prophet. This is why [the people of Nazareth] say,
“Do also here whatsoever signs we have heard thou hast done in Caper-
naum.” 150 (7) Later, again, he returned from there to Capernaum and from
there went over to the Lake, or Sea of Gennesareth, and Peter and the others
were chosen for good; and then he went on to do all of his preaching.

30,8 For going in order, as I said: after the forty < days > [of the tempta-
tion], and the other two weeks and two days < at Nazareth >, Christ went
to John on a first day and the day following. And when he had started back
to Nazareth < from > John, and remained [in lodging] from the tenth hour
until evening, and on the next day gone out and met Philip (g) — making
two days — the Gospel next shows its unshakeable accuracy by its men-

148 John 2:8.

149 Cf. the material at 16,3; 21,10; 30,8.

150 Luke 4:23.

ALOGI

tion of the first two, the ones on which he “remained” in the course of his
journey, [and] by saying [next], “On the third day there was a marriage in
Cana of Galilee.” 151

30,10 This was symbolic of the church. For on the third day of his activ-
ity in the heart of the earth, which he spent in hades 152 after the pas-
sion, he arose and contracted marriage with “Cana” — for "Cana” means
“the bride.” 153 (11) But who is “the bride” except the heiress of whom the
Psalmist said, “For the heiress,” 154 and so on, in the fifth Psalm? Blessed
indeed is this marriage, which took its occasion from that type! (12) For
there was an actual wedding there, in Cana of Galilee, and water which
really became wine, < and Christ* > was invited for two purposes. [One
was] to dry, < through > marriage, the wetness of the world’s carousers to
temperance and decency. [The other was] to remedy what is wanting for
good spirits through cheering wine, and through grace. (13) He thus com-
pletely silences the opponents of marriage, 155 and by providing the vine
with water, and tinting it into wine within the vine to make men glad,
shows that, with his Father and Holy Spirit, he is God. I have discussed
this elsewhere at greater length; 156 here I have hurried over the matter as
though in passing.

30,14 At all events, the Savior kept two Passovers after the beginning
of his preaching and suffered on the third, and this ends the things I have
by now said in great detail about days, months and consulships. And their
erroneous argument has failed in every respect, since the Gospels are in
agreement and no evangelist contradicts another.

31,1 But to return to the subject. To witness to what I have said in a
number of different ways, Luke, again, says, "It came to pass on the sec-
ond Sabbath after the first.” 157 This is to show that a "first Sabbath” is the
Sabbath the Lord ordained at the beginning and called a Sabbath during
the creation, a Sabbath which has recurred at seven day intervals from
then till now — but that a “second” Sabbath is the one instituted by the
Law. (2) For the Law says, “Thou shalt take to thyself a lamb of a year old,
male and without blemish” — a type of the Savior — “on the tenth day of

151 John 2:1.

152 Holl ev to a 5 yj, MSS ev tv) yv).

153 So Origen, In Joh. 13.62.

154 Ps 5, superscription.

155 Holl yctpou, MSS xupiou, Codex Urbinas vopou xupiou.

156 Anc. 66,2-10.

157 Luke 6:1.

ALOGI

the month, and it shall be kept until the fourteenth day. And ye shall slay
it at even on the fourteenth day; and it shall be unto thee a Sabbath, an
holy day, and ye shall eat unleavened bread seven days, and the seventh
day thou shalt declare holy.” 158 (3) And see how such a holy day of the
lamb is called a second Sabbath after the first Sabbath, and is consecrated
as a Sabbath even if it may be the Lord’s Day, or if the second day of the
week, or the third day of the week falls upon it. (4) But a second Sabbath
[after this one], if it recurs in the regular seven day cycle, is called a “first”
Sabbath — all of which shows that not only John gave indication of a time
of two years and three Passover festivals, but that Luke and the others
did as well.

31,5 For the Law says as follows: “Thou shalt number unto thee seven
weeks from the first [reaping] of the sheaf, the putting of the sickle unto
the standing corn, and thou shalt declare the seventh seventh day an holy
day of the Lord,” 159 meaning the feast of Pentecost. (6) For within three
days after the slaying of the Passover — that is, three days after [the sacri-
fice of] the lamb — the Law enjoined the bringing in of the sheaf, mean-
ing the blessed Sheaf which was raised from the dead after the third day.
(7) For the earth brought forth the Sheaf, and he received it back from her
at his rising < from > the tomb and remaining with his disciples for the
forty days, and at the end of the Pentecost bringing it into the heavens to
the Father. (8) He is the firstborn of the firstborn, the holy hrstfruits, the
Sheaf which was reaped from Mary, the Embrace embraced in God, the
fruit of the womb, the hrstfruits of the threshing floor, (g) For after Pen-
tecost the sickle no longer offers a hrstfruits to God: “The Lord dieth no
more, death hath no more dominion over him.” 160 as the scripture says.

31,10 And you see how many of God’s mysteries the Law prehgured and
the Gospel fulfilled. In which passages can I not expound them? But not
to go on too long, I must return to our order of presentation. (11) However,
from the ears, the standing grain and the disciples, it is plain that John,
Luke and all the evangelists describe all these things after the forty day
temptation.

32,1 But again, these people are not ashamed to take arms against the
things St.John has said, supposing that they can overthrow the truth, but
unaware that they are attacking themselves rather than the sound doc-

158 Exod 12:5; 6:14; 15.

159 Deut 16:9; Lev 23:15-16.

160 Rom 6:g.

ALOGI

trine. (2) For they derisively say against Revelation, “What good does John’s
Revelation do me by telling me about seven angels and seven trumpets?”
(3) not knowing that such things were essential and profitable when the
message was rightly understood.

32,4 For whatever was obscure and puzzling in The Law and the Proph-
ets, the Lord in his providence revealed by the Holy Spirit "to his servant
John” 161 for our salvation. What was obscure there he proclaims spiritually
and clearly here, < for he gave commandments bodily* > in the Law but
reveals the same ones spiritually to us.

(5) And in the Law he makes the then tabernacle out of skins, the
skins that were dyed scarlet, blue and so on, to show that the tabernacle
there is actually a tent, but that it awaits the perfect Tabernacle of Christ.
(6) For skin comes off a body and is a dead thing, like the shadow of a
living body; and this shows that bodies are God’s tabernacle, for God
dwells in holy bodies in fulfillment of the words of scripture, “I shall tab-
ernacle in thee and make my abode in thee.” 162

32,7 Thus error would arise among the faithful if the book had not been
revealed to us spiritually, teaching us that there is no need for trumpets,
but < enabling us* > to know that God’s entire activity is spiritual — (8) so
that we will not take these as bronze or silver trumpets like the Jewish
trumpets, but understand spiritually that they are the church’s message
from heaven: as he has said elsewhere, “On that day they sound with the
great trumpet.” 163 (9) For the prophets were trumpets, but the great Trum-
pet is the Lord’s holy voice in the Gospel. For this is why angels were also
privileged to make revelations to us; “For the trumpet shall sound,” it says,
“and the dead will arise.” 164

32,10 But if you people joke about the angels’ trumpets because of their
being in Revelation, then the trumpet the holy apostle speaks of must
be a joke too, for he says, “The Lord shall descend from heaven at the
last trump, and the dead will arise on the last day at the voice of the
archangel.” 165 (11) What reply is left you, since Paul agrees with the holy
apostle John in the Revelation? How can every error not be refuted at
once, when God has testified < for > the saints in each book?

161 Rev 1:1.

162 2 Cor 6:16 (Lev 26:12).

163 Cf. Num 10:10.

164 1 Cor 15:52.

165 Cf. 1 Thes 4:16.

ALOGI

33,1 Then again, some of them seize on the following text in Revela-
tion, and say in contradiction of it, "He said, in turn, ‘Write to the angel of
the church in Thyatira,’ 166 and there is no church of Christians in Thyatira.
How could he write to a non-existent church?” (2) In fact these people
demolish themselves since they are compelled by their own declarations 167
to confess the truth. For if they say, “There is no church in Thyatira now,”
they are showing that John has foretold this.

33>3 For after these Phrygians had settled there and like wolves seized
the minds of the simple believers, they converted the whole town to their
sect, and at that time those who reject Revelation attacked this text in an
effort to discredit it. (4) But now, in our time, the church is there thanks
to Christ and is growing, 112 years after [its restoration], even < though >
there are some others (i.e., sectarians) there. Then, however, the whole
church had deserted to the Phrygians. (5) And thus the Holy Spirit was
at pains to reveal to us the way the church would fall into error ninety-
three years after the time of the apostles, John and his successors — or in
other words, for a time < of 138 years* > from the Savior’s ascension until
the church’s restoration — since the church there would go astray and be
buried in the Phrygian sect.

33,6 For this is how the Lord at once confounds < them > in Revela-
tion, with the words, “Write to the angel of the church in Thyatira, Thus
saith he whose eyes are as a flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass. I
know thy works, and thy faith and thy love and thy ministry, and that
thy latter works are more than the first. (7) But I have against thee that
thou sufferest the woman Jezebel to deceive my servants, calling herself a
prophetess, teaching to eat things sacrificed to idols and commit fornica-
tion. And I gave her space for repentance, and she will not repent of her
fornication.” 168

33,8 Don’t you see, you people, that he means the women who are
deceived by a false conception of prophecy, and will deceive many? I
mean that he is speaking of Priscilla, Maximilla and Quintilla, (g) whose
imposture the Holy Spirit did not overlook. He foretold it prophetically
by the mouth of St. John, who prophesied before his falling asleep, dur-
ing the time of Claudius Caesar and earlier, when he was on the isle of
Patmos. Even these people in Thyatira admit that this has come true.

166 Rev 2:18.

167 Holl dva<7XEud?ovTEi;, dvaoxEuociJopEvoi, MSS: dvotyxd^ovTE?.

168 Rev 2:18-21.

ALOGI

(10) John, then, was writing prophetically, to those who were living in
Christ there at the time, that a woman would call herself a prophetess.
And the artificial argument which is raised against the truth has failed
completely, since it can be shown that the prophetic oracle in Revelation
is truly of the Holy Spirit.

34,1 Again, in their endless hunt for texts, to give the appearance of
discrediting the holy apostle’s books — I mean John’s Gospel and Revela-
tion and perhaps the Epistles as well, for they too agree with the Gospel
and Revelation — these people get excited (2) and quote, “I saw, and he
said to the angel, Loose the four angels which are upon the Euphrates.
And I heard the number of the host, ten thousand times ten thousand
and thousands of thousands, and they were clad in breastplates of fire and
sulfur and hyacinth.” 169

34,3 For people like these thought that the truth might be < some
sort of > joke. For if he speaks of the four angels who are sitting in the
Euphrates, this is to indicate the various peoples there who live by the
Euphrates: the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians. (4) For these
are the four kingdoms which are successively mentioned in Daniel. The
Assyrians were the first of them to rule, and in Daniel’s time, the Babylo-
nians. But the Medes succeeded them, and after them came the Persians,
whose first king was Cyrus.

34,5 For the nations have been put under the angels’ command, as
God’s holy servant Moses testifies, interpreting the words consistently
and saying: “Ask thy father and he will tell thee, thine elders and they will
say it unto thee: when the most High apportioned the nations, when he
dispersed the sons of Adam, he set bounds to the nations according to the
number of the angels of God. And his people Jacob became the Lord’s por-
tion, Israel the lot of his inheritance.” 170 (6) Now if the nations have been
put under the angels’ command John was right in saying, “Loose the four
angels who are upon the Euphrates.” They are plainly in charge [of the
nations], and prevented from sending the nations to war until the time of
[the end of] God’s long-suffering, until he orders the avenging of his saints
by their agency. (7) The angels in command are restrained by the Spirit
and not allowed to attack, because justice does not release them yet, so
that the rest of the nations may be released because of the outrage the
saints have endured. But they are to be released and fall suddenly on the

169 Rev 9:14; 16; 17.

170 Deut 32:7-9.

ADAMIANS

earth, as John and the rest of the prophets foretold. For when the angels
are aroused, they arouse the nations to an avenging onslaught.

34,8 And let no one doubt that he meant sulfur, fiery and hyacinth
breastplates. Those nations wear clothing of that color. “Sulfur clothes”
means a quince yellow color, as they call it, of wool. “Fiery” means their
scarlet clothing, and “hyacinth” means the blue-green wool.

35,1 But since these people have not received the Holy Spirit they are
spiritually condemned for not understanding the things of the Spirit, and
choosing to speak against the words of the Spirit. This is because they do
not know the gifts of grace in the holy church, which the Holy Spirit, the
holy apostles, and the holy prophets have expounded truly and soundly,
with understanding and a sound mind. (2) One of the apostles and proph-
ets, St. John, has shared his sacred gift with the holy church, through the
Gospel, the Epistles and the Revelation. (3) But these people are liable to
the scriptural penalty, “Whoso blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it will
not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.” 171 For
they have gone to war against the words the Spirit has spoken.

35,4 But let us go on once more to the rest, beloved, with the power of
God. Now that I have said such things, and so many of them, against such
a sect, I think that this is enough. I have trampled it with God’s power and
truth, like the many-footed millipede or the serpent they call the wood-
louse. It is not very strong and its poison is not very painful, but it has lots
of feet and its body is long and twisty.

Against Adamians * 1 32, but 52 of the series

1,1 The four-footed animal with an underground den which tunnels in the
earth and has its burrow deep inside it, is called a mole. All its character-
istics are like those of a small puppy for it has the < same > round shape,
and it has no sight at all. (2) It is a destructive creature which roots out
people’s crops from below, especially every cucumber bed and the sharp-
tasting plants — onions, garlic, purse-tassels and the like — and lilies and
the rest. (3) But if it actually gets onto the surface during its tunneling, in
the open air, or if it is hunted and caught by men, it is an object of ridicule
to everyone who hunts the creature.

171 Matt 12:32.

1 This sect is reported only by Epiphanius, and by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 1.6) in depen-
dence upon Epiphanius. Epiphanius’ sources are oral, cf. 1,6-9.

ADAMIANS

1,4 With all this I am trying to say of the sect with which I now have
to do that it is blind in heart and stupid, creates desolation for itself
and undermines the ground it stands on, and injures the roots of many,

of those who have happened on it. (5) But if it should be spied
by the wise, it gives them a good laugh. As the creature we spoke of is
mocked for its blindness, < and > cannot find its hole because of its lack
of sight, so is this sect.

1,6 For they have adopted the name of Adam. I say this because I have
heard it reported by many; I have not found it in any treatises, and have
certainly not met any such people. (7) And so, since many have spoken
of the sect, I consider it worth mentioning. And this is why I was right in
comparing it with that blind animal which is not readily seen by men; it
is hidden in the earth and does its damage below.

1,8 Now it is completely absurd and I considered not including it at all.
However, as long as there is even a rumor of it, it can do the wise hearer
no harm to know about all the tares the devil has sown in the world.
(9) For whether or not there is such a sect, since I have heard many say
that there is I think it is sensible to speak of it for safety’s sake and not
leave it out, even if it has been dissolved and is no longer in being. For
I am not certain whether it still exists or not.

1,10 But why should I spend a long time on my prologue to the descrip-
tion of it? I shall begin my account of the ridicule, or rather, of the sorrow.
For it is susceptible of the two things at once, ridicule and sorrow —

< sorrow > at the devil’s way of planting contempt for God’s creature in
the human mind; ridicule of those who can neither see, nor conceive of
anything sensible.

2,1 In the first place, they say that these people build their churches —
or dens and caves; that is what I would call the meetings of the sects — in
heated rooms, and that they heat them from below so that there will be
hot air to warm the congregation in the chamber inside. (2) And when
they come in they have people to watch the clothes, like cloak-room atten-
dants, stationed at the doors. And they each, whether man or woman,
undress outside as they come in, and enter with their whole bodies as
naked as the day they were born. And their recognized leaders and teach-
ers all sit stark naked, some in front and some in back, here and there in
no particular order.

2,3 They are all called “continent,” if you please, and make a boast of
it — and “virgins,” as they delude themselves into thinking they are — and
they have their readings and all the rest of their service naked. (4) But if
it appears that one of them has “fallen into transgression,” as they put it,

ADAMIANS

they do not admit him any more. They say that he < is > Adam after eating
from the tree, and condemn him to expulsion from their church as though
from Paradise. For they think that their church is Paradise, and that they
themselves are Adam and Eve.

2.5 Why do they heat the room, then — to keep from getting a chill?
Adam and Eve didn’t live in a house with a furnace and weren’t oppressed
by any heat, and no cold afflicted them. (6) They had the purest of air,
temperately dispensed to them by God < with > all mildness, neither
sharpened by the rigor of cold, nor enervated by summer’s wretched heat.
The country had been set aside for an immortal abode, very < well > made
by God, filled with gladness and well-being; and as I said, it got neither
cold nor hot. Since the Adamians lack these things, it is plain that they
are a joke.

3,1 Next let us look at another way of exposing their whole imposture.
Adam and Eve were not naked for one hour; they were always naked “and
were not ashamed.” 2 But the nakedness of these people is not from lack
of shame, even if they themselves think so; they are naked for the sake of
an insatiable pleasure which works its enchantment on the pupils of the
eyes. (2) The modesty commended in all the sacred scriptures has been
taken from them and the words of the prophet are truly fulfilled, “The
appearance of an harlot hath been given thee, who hast been shameless
with all.” 3

3.3 But after that hour they resume their clothes outside, and [so] they
cannot be Adam. Adam and his wife were not furnished clothing at the
outset. They sewed fig leaves together first, and then they were given skin
tunics, and so, after a considerable part of their lives, “the manifold wis-
dom of God” 4 endowed them with the knowledge of clothing.

3.4 These people will also be jeered at in every way because, in calling
themselves Adam and Eve, they are lying about themselves, and yet at
the same time telling the truth. (5) For it is plain from many indications
that they are not Adam, as I have shown. But that they are mocked by
the spiritual serpent is plain from their false symbolism, their nakedness,
shame and absurdity.

3.6 It is not worth my while to make a big thing of their refutation.
To kill a beast of their sort one does not need weapons of war or heavy

2 Gen 2:25.

3 Jer 3:3.

4 Cf. Eph 3:10.

SAMPSAEANS

armor; (7) it is dispatched with a little stick. Often, when it has been
pulled from its den it is merely left alone and dies of itself, laughed and
jeered at with nowhere to run to — as these people, when they are caught,
are put to shame by their ridiculous absurdity, unseemly behavior and
silly religion.

3,8 But now, as we prepare to look into the rest, let us pray the Lord
once more for his assistance in finding out the rest and refuting them, and
for our salvation and that of our readers.

Against Sampsaeans 1

1,1 There is a sect of Peraean Sampsaeans, the people also known as Elka-
saites whom I have already mentioned in my other Sects, 2 in the country
called Peraea beyond the Salt, or as it is called, the Dead Sea. They are
< also > in Moabitis near the river Arnon, and on the other side in Ituraea
and Naabatitis, as I have often said of them. 3

1,2 These people boast that Elxai is their teacher, and further, two
women of his stock who are alive to this day, and are worshipped as sup-
posed goddesses because they are of the blessed seed. (3) But Ossaeans,
Ebionites and Nazoraeans use this book, as I have often said. 4 These
Sampsaeans, however, actually base their religion on it, and are neither
Christians, Jews nor pagans; since they are just in the middle, they are
nothing. But they say that they have another book, which is called the
book of Elxai’s brother Iexai.

1.4 They say that God is one, and supposedly worship him by the
administration of some sort of baptisms. 5 They are devoted to the Jewish
religion, [but] not in all ways. Some of them even abstain from meat.

1.5 They will die for Elxai’s descendants. And I have heard recently that
the one woman, called Marthus, had died though, unless she has died
too, Marthana was still alive. (6) Any time these women went anywhere

1 Epiphanius is the only heresiologist to discuss the Sampsaeans. Much of his material
is based on the contents of Elxai’s book, which he had read: see Pan. 19,1,4-4,6; Hippol.
Haer. 9.13.2-4; Eus. H. E. 6.38. As a Palestinian, Epiphanius may have had some personal
knowledge. Sampsaeans are mentioned in connection with Ossaeans and others at Pan.
19,2,1; 20,3,2; 30,3,2.

2 Pan. 19,2,1; 20,3,2.

3 Cf. Pan. 19,1,2; 20,3,2.

4 Cf. Pan. 19,5,4.

5 Cf., perhaps, the “Baptists" of the Life of Mani, CMC.

SAMPSAEANS

on foot, the crowds would follow them and take the dust of their feet for
healing, if you please, and, since they were woefully deluded, their spittle
too, and use them in phylacteries and amulets. For every error contracted
blindness first, and nonsense next.

1.7 They accept neither prophets nor apostles, but all their ideas are
delusion. They honor water and all but regard it as God, for they claim it
is the source of life. 6

1.8 They confess Christ in name but believe that he is a creature, and
that he keeps appearing every now and then. He was formed for the first
time in Adam, but when he chooses he takes Adam’s body off and puts
it on again, (g) He is called Christ, and the Holy Spirit is his sister, in
female form. Each of them, Christ and the Holy Spirit, is ninety-six miles
in height and twenty-four miles in width; and they < blab out* > a lot of
other < nonsense* >.

2,1 1 have often described these people before in the other Sects, and
composed refutations; hence 1 do not think it is necessary to make a big
thing of the demolition of a refutation [in their case], since 1 have already
done it with Elxaeus, or Elxai himself, and his followers, in the other Sects
1 have mentioned. Anyone can tell that he and his sect are off the track.
(2) Let us go on to the rest now, since we have struck him, like a solar liz-
ard, with the cudgel of hope in Christ and his cross. For it is worth using
the very name they have given themselves as a symbolic explanation of
their phony title. “Sampsaeans” translated means “Solar”; 7 this is why I
have mentioned the beast.

2.3 For people call this lizard a "solar lizard.” But this sect is inferior
to the lizard, since it does not even have its momentary advantage. For
though the lizard’s sight is dim, it sometimes sees clearly with the aid of
the sun’s orb; < for > in its den, which faces eastward, it strains itself, fast-
ing, towards the east, < and > when it sees the sun its sight loses its dim-
ness. But in my opinion this sect has the lizard’s foolishness in everything,
and not even this little bit to its credit.

2.4 And so, now that this sect which we have called a solar lizard has
also been trampled by the truth, < let remain in its foolishness >.

6 With Brandt, Dummer and Amidon we punctuate with a comma after ct^eSov.

7 Epiphanius derives Sampsaean from U?QUt

THEODOTIANS

Against Theodotians. 1 34, but 54 of the series

1,1 One Theodotus arose in his turn. He was an offshoot of the “Dumb” sect
I have spoken of, which denies John’s Gospel and the divine Word who it
< declares > was “in the beginning,” and John’s Revelation. (2) He was also
associated and contemporary with the other sects we have discussed, and
was their successor in time. 2 The Theodotians, as they are called, derive
from him. I do not know whether the sect is still in existence, but shall say
what I have learned about it from written works.

1,3 Theodotus was from Byzantium, 3 which is now called Constan-
tinople. He was a shoemaker by trade, 4 but a man of broad learning.
(4) At the outset of a persecution — I cannot say which one — he with
some others was arrested by the governor of the city, and was subjected to
examination for Christ’s sake along with the rest. All the other servants of
God won their victory and attained heavenly rewards by their witness for
Christ. (5) Theodotus, however, fell into transgression by denying Christ
and missing the mark of the truth and, deeply ashamed because of his
censure by many, fled his native land, moved to Rome and lived there.

1,6 But when he was recognized by the Christians in Rome, he once
again incurred the same censure there; for he was charged, by those who
knew him for his learning, with being a very learned man who had lost
his grip on the truth. (7) But as a supposed lame excuse for himself he
invented the following new doctrine that said, “I didn’t deny God, 1 denied
a man.” Then, when they asked him, “Which man?” he answered, “I denied
the man Christ.”

r,8 Thereafter he, and the Theodotians whose founder he was, taught
this doctrine of his and said that Christ is a mere man 5 begotten of a
man’s seed. 6 (g) Next, as a weak defense for himself, he collected whatever
texts he found useful — not that he honestly thought [this was what they
meant], but he amassed them as an excuse for his defection. He said, [for

1 Epiph tells us at 1,2 that his sources are written; he plainly has some digest of Theodo-
tus' arguments. For Theodotians see also Hipp. Haer.7.35.1-2; 8.9.35; 10.23.1-2; PsT 8.

2 Hipp. Haer. 8.9.35 makes Theodotus “an offshoot of the Gnostics and Cerinthians, and
the school of Ebion.”

3 Cf. Hipp. Haer. 7.35.1; PsT 8.

4 Eus. H. E. 5.28.6.

5 Hipp. Haer. 7.35.2; 10.23.1; Eus. H. E.5.28.6; PsT 8.

6 Hippolytus reports the Theodotus taught the doctrine of the Virgin Birth but without
deducing from it the divinity of Christ, Haer. 7.35.2. Cf. Pan 54,3,5.

THEODOTIANS

example], “Christ said, ‘But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told
you the truth.’ 7 You see,” he said, “that Christ is a man.”

2.1 But the wretch does not know that the Lord says in the same verse,
“the truth which I have heard of my Father." He is saying that God is his
father — not a man. (2) If he had heard the truth from a man he would not
have boasted of his witness to the truth by saying that he had heard the
truth from men. Instead he boasts of it to show that he is God, begotten
of the Father on high but become man for us, and slain in the flesh, but
living forever in his Godhead.

2.3 Theodotus says next that he has not committed sin by denying
Christ. “For,” says he, “Christ himself has said, ‘All manner of blasphemy
shall be forgiven men,’ and, Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son
of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that blasphemeth the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him here or in the world to come.’” 8

2.4 And the unfortunate man does not know that, from a superabun-
dance of meekness and lovingkindness, the Lord is saying this propheti-
cally, in his desire to ensure in advance the salvation of those who have
at one time blasphemed him and [then] returned to repentance, thus not
sentencing them to condemnation. (5) [He is saying it besides] because
he knows that certain persons will arise and blaspheme the Holy Spirit
and place him in a slave’s status, making him alien to the essence of God.
(6) And so, as a precaution, he said, “He that blasphemeth against the
Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him here or in the world to come” —
not to commend those who blaspheme him, but to show his foreknowl-
edge and lovingkindness by assuring in advance the salvation of those
who blaspheme him and [then] repent. (7) For he himself, again, says, “He
that hath denied me before men shall be denied before my Father,” 9 and,
“I will deny him,” 10 and again, “He that confesseth me I will confess before
my Father.” * 11

3.1 And again this same Theodotus says, "The Law too said of him,
‘The Lord will raise up unto you a prophet of your brethren, like unto me;
hearken to him.’ 12 But Moses was a man. Therefore the Christ whom God

7 John 8:40.

8 Matt 12:31-32.

9 Matt 10:33.

10 Matt 10:33.

11 Matt 10:32.

12 Deut 18:15.

THEODOTIANS

raised up was this person but, since he was one of them, was a man just
as Moses was a man.”

3,2 Because of his lapse into transgression Theodotus has no under-
standing of the way in which each text has its safeguard. (3) The Lord
raised Christ “from among his brethren” in the sense that he was born of
Mary, as the scripture says, “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear
a son.” 13 While still remaining a virgin “she shall conceive” — not from a
man’s seed — “and bear a Son;” it is plain that the Virgin’s offspring was
born in the flesh. But “They shall call his name Emmanuel which being
interpreted, is God with us.” 14 (4) For he is God and man: God, begotten
of the Father without beginning and not in time; but man, born of Mary,
because of the incarnation.

3,5 Next Theodotus says, “And the Gospel itself said to Mary, ‘The Spirit
of the Lord shall come upon thee’; 15 it did not say, ‘The Spirit of the Lord
shall enter into thee.’” (6) For in his contentiousness the stupid man is
deprived of the truth in every respect. In every way the scripture is pro-
tecting our salvation. To show that the Trinity is altogether and entirely
co-existent and co-operant, and make sure that no one will echo the evil
allegations which many make (7) to separate the Holy Spirit from Christ
and < the > Father, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee,” and after
that, “Therefore also that which is born of thee shall be called holy, the
Son of God.”

3,8 And he did not say merely, “that which is born,” but, “therefore also
that which is born < [shall be] holy >,” 16 to show that < the > divine Word
from above also entered the womb and formed his own human nature
in his image according to his good pleasure. And because of his human
nature which he took for our salvation, the scripture adds, “Therefore
also that which is born shall be called holy, the Son of God.” (9) For if the
angel had said, "The Holy Spirit shall enter into thee,” it would not be pos-
sible to think that the Son of God had come in the flesh, but [only] that
the Holy Spirit had come in the flesh.

3,10 But since he is the Word come from on high, John, to clarify what
we hear from the angel in the Gospel, said, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things

13 Isa 7:14.

14 Matt 1:23.

15 Luke 1:35. See note 6.

16 Klostermann: <ayiov>.

THEODOTIANS

were made by him, and without him was not anything made.” 17 (n) Then,
after this, “And the Word was made flesh.” 18 And he did not say, “The
Spirit was made flesh;” nor did he say, "Christ was born as a man.” (12) On
its guard at every turn, the sacred scripture knows him as God and man:
God come from God on high, but man born of Mary without a man’s seed.
Whoever departs from these two truths is not of the truth.

4.1 The wretched Theodotus, once more, says by way of allegation, “Jer-
emiah too said of him, ‘He he is a man and who will know him?’ ” 19 Because
< he > had estranged himself from the truth < he> did not know that each
verse, as 1 said, is self-interpreting. Whoever is a man is of course known
by many acquaintances — 1 mean by his father and mother, brothers and
relatives, friends and neighbors, fellow townsmen, household servants.

(3) But here, to describe the marvel of Christ’s whole work, the scripture
called him “man” because of the incarnation, but gave indication of his
incomprehensible Godhead by saying, “Who will know him?” (4) For since
“No man knoweth the Son save the Father, neither knoweth any man the
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,” 20 no
one will know Christ unless < Christ himself > reveals it to him. (5) But by
the Holy Spirit he reveals his own and his Father’s Godhead and glory to
his servants, and his eternal life to come, his mysteries, his teaching, and
his true advent in the flesh for our sakes; for he is God from on high, and
man from Mary.

5.1 Then Theodotus says in turn, “Isaiah too called him a man, for he
said, ‘A man acquainted with the bearing of infirmity; and we knew him
afflicted with blows and abuse, and he was despised and not esteemed.’” 21
(2) But the oaf does not know how he is confounded once more. In that
very passage Isaiah said the following: “He was brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb so he opened not his
mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away” 22 — (3) then he
says, “Who can declare his generation, for his life is taken from men?” 23
And he didn’t say, “His life was taken < from > him," but, “from men."

(4) For the Word is forever living and in being, has life of himself, and

17 John 1:1; 3.

18 John 1:14.

19 Jer 17:8.

20 Matt 11:27.

21 Isa 53:3.

22 Isa 53:7-83.

23 Cf. Isa 53:6b.

THEODOTIANS

gives life to those who love him. His life was taken from men, but < as God
he lives* > and is life of himself. For “The Word is living,” 24 and provides
life to all who have truly placed their hopes in flim-
sy And the words, “Who can declare his generation?” < cannot be
applied to a man* >. If he were a mere man born of Mary, it would be
easy to declare his generation. But since he is before David, < and > before
Abraham — (6) “Your father Abraham,” he says, “desired to see my day,
and he saw it and was glad.” 25 And then, when they said in astonishment,
“Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou see Abraham?” 26 in refuta-
tion of Theodotus and the unbelieving Jews who deny God he said, “Verily,
verily I say unto you, before Abraham, I am.” 27 (7) For he was truly before
Abraham, and before Noah, Adam, the world, heaven, the time of the uni-
verse, and the time of all creatures, for he is not in time. (8) And this is
why, through Isaiah, he is declared incomprehensible by the Holy Spirit:
“Who can declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.” 28

5,9 Theodotus, however, says, “The holy apostles called him ‘a man
approved among you by signs and wonders;’ 29 and they did not say, ‘God
approved.’” (ro) But Theodotus, you are foiled again. On the contrary, the
same apostles [said that he was God] in the same Acts, as the blessed
Stephen said, “Behold, I see heaven open, and the Son of Man standing
on the right hand of God.” 30

6,r His next allegation is that ‘The apostle called him the mediator
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.’” 31 (2) And he does not
realize how he is attacking himself once more. The apostle who said,
“mediator between God and man, < the man > Christ Jesus,” clarified this
himself by saying, "declared to be the Son of God with power, according
to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, our Lord Jesus
Christ;” 32 and again, “made of a woman, made under the Law.” 33 (3) And
in confirmation of these statements he says, “If there be that are called
gods many and lords many, yet to us there is one God, of whom are all

24 Heb 4:12.

25 Cf. lohn 8:56 and Matt 13:17.

26 John 8:57.

27 John 8:58.

28 Isa 53:6b.

29 Acts 2:22.

30 Acts 7:56.

31 1 Tim 2:5.

32 Rom 1:4.

33 Gal 4:4.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things < and we for
him >.” 34 (4) But if “All things are by him and we are for him,” the Only-
begotten cannot be a mere man < who dates > from Mary, or the product
of a man’s seed. If he was a mere man, how could all things be by him
when, as you say, they were before him? Or how could all things be for
him, when they were known and made before him? And Theodotus’ fool-
ishness fails completely.

6,5 During the debate itself I have both said what I know of Theodotus,
and given the refutation of each of his arguments. In the manner of the
series I shall pass him by as though, with the hope and faith of the truth,
I had struck and killed part of a still wriggling snake. Let us investigate the
rest, and hurry on to take a look at the sects in all their savagery.

Against Melchizedekians, * 1 35, but 55 of the series

1,1 In turn, others call themselves Melchizedekians; they may be an off-
shoot of the group who are known as Theodotians. (2) They honor the
Melchizedek who is mentioned in the scriptures and regard him as a sort
of great power. 2 He is on high in places which cannot be named, and in
< fact > is not just a power; indeed, they claim in their error that he is
greater than Christ. 3 (3) Based, if you please, on the literal wording of,
“Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” 4 they believe
that Christ has merely come and been given the order of Melchizedek.
Christ is thus younger than Melchizedek, they say. For if his place were
not somehow second in line 5 he would have no need of Melchizedek’s
rank.

1,4 Of Melchizedek himself they say that he < has come into being >
“without father, without mother, without lineage” 6 — as they would like to

34 1 Cor 8:5-6.

1 The Qumran Melchizedek fragments, (11Q Melch), 2 Enoch 71-72, Pistis Sophia and
the Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek (NHC IX, 1) all witness to Melchizedek's impor-
tance in many ancient circles. Patristic notices of the Melchizedekean heresy are found at
Eus. H. E. 5.28.8-10; Hippol. Haer. 7.36; PsT 8; Jer. Ep. 73. Cf. Pan 67,7.

2 In Pistis Sophia the heavenly Melchizedek is the “paralemptor of the light,” who
restores imprisoned light to the treasury of light, PS 34-36; 194-195 et al. NHC's Melchizedek
implies that his origin is heavenly, Melch. 6,16-19. At nQMelch he conducts the last judg-
ment and is termed “El.”

3 Hipp. Haer. 7.36; PsT 8.

4 Ps 109:4.

5 The translation is problematic.

6 Heb 7:3.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

show from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews. (5) They also fabricate spuri-
ous books for their own deception.

1,6 Their refutation comes from the texts themselves. When David
prophesies that the Lord will be a priest after the order of Melchizedek,
the sacred scripture is saying in the same breath that Christ will be a priest.
(7) But we find that < Paul > says at once, “Made like unto the Son of God,
[Melchizedek] abideth a priest continually.” 7 Now if he is made Like the
Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. How can the servant be the
master’s equal? (8) For Melchizedek was a man. “Without father, without
mother,” is not said because he had no father or mother, but because his
father and mother are not explicitly named in the sacred scripture.

1,9 The profundities and glories of the sacred scripture, which are
beyond human understanding, have confused many. The natives of Petra
in Arabia, which is called Rokom and Edom, were in awe of Moses because
of his miracles, and at one time they made an image of him, and mistak-
enly undertook 8 to worship it. They had no true cause for this, but in their
ignorance their error drew an imaginary inference from something real.
(10) And in Sebasteia, which was once called Samaria, they have declared
Jephthah’s daughter a goddess, and still hold a festival in her honor every
year. (11) Similarly, these people have heard the glorious, wise words of
the scripture and changed them to stupidity. With over-inflated pride they
have abandoned the way of the truth, and will be shown to have fabri-
cated stories of their own invention.

2,1 In fact Melchizedek’s father and mother are mentioned by some
authors, though this is not based on the canonical, covenanted scriptures.
Still, some have said that his father was a man called Heracles, and his
mother was Astarth, the same as Astoriane. He was the son of one of the
inhabitants of the country at that time, who lived in the plain of Save.
(2) And the city was called Salem, and various authors have given dif-
ferent accounts of it. Some say that it is the city now known as Jerusa-
lem, though it was once called Jehus. But others have said that there was
another Salem in the plain of Sicimi, opposite the town which is now
called Neapolis.

2,3 But whether it was the one location or the other — the places are
not far apart — in any case the passage tells what happened. It says, “He
brought forth bread and wine for Abraham, and at that time he was the

7 Heb 7:3.

8 Holl: emyeipoOv MSS: 7ipo<7£xuvouv.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

priest of God Most High. 9 And he blessed Abraham, and took a tithe from
him. (4) For the priest of God Most High had to be honored by a servant of
God, and — since the circumcised priesthood would stem from Abraham
himself — Abraham had to offer first to the priest who served without cir-
cumcision, so that “Every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowl-
edge of God” 10 would be humbled. (5) Thus the circumcised, who boast of
priesthood, could not dispute the priesthood of God’s holy church, which
observes neither bodily circumcision nor the absence of it, but possesses
the greater and more perfect circumcision, the laver of regeneration.

2,6 For if Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek but Abraham’s
descendants offer it to Aaron and Levi, and next, after the priesthood
had become circumcised through Aaron and his sons, the scripture says
through David that the priesthood is vested in Melchizedek — says this
twelve generations after Levi’s birth and after seven generations from
the succession of Aaron — it has shown that the priestly rank does not
remain with the ancient circumcised priesthood. (7) It was transferred
to [a priesthood] before Levi and before Aaron, the priesthood after the
order of Melchizedek, which now, since the Lord’s incarnation, resides in
the church. The seed is no longer chosen [for priesthood] because of a
succession; a type is looked for, because of virtue.

3,1 For the first uncircumcised priesthood is reckoned through Abel;
after that, moreover, through Noah. But a third [such priesthood] is reck-
oned through Melchizedek, who did not serve God by circumcision but by
perfect righteousness and virtue, and with body uncircumcised. (2) And
that Melchizedek was a man, God’s holy apostle himself will show in his
epistle. For he says, “He whose descent is not counted from them received
tithes of the patriarch.” * 11 It is plain that his descent is not traced from
them, but from others.

3,3 And of how many others is the ancestry not expressly given?
Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite — neither their
fathers nor their mothers are found anywhere in any of the covenanted
scriptures. But so that no error arises from this, it will do no harm to
say what I have learned from tradition myself. (4) For I have found that
Daniel’s father was a man called Sabaan. And I have likewise actually
found Elijah’s lineage, and shall trace it in order: (5) Elijah the Tishbite

9 Cf. Gen 10:18.

10 2 Cor 10:5.

11 Heb 7:6.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

was the brother of Jehoiada the priest. He too was supposedly of priestly
descent and was the son of Ahinoam. But Ahinoam was the son of Zadok,
and Zadok the son of Ahitub the son of Amoriah. Amoriah was the son of
Razaza, Razaza of Ahaziah, and Ahaziah of Phineas. Phineas was the son
of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the son of Aaron, plainly Aaron the [high] -
priest. Aaron was the son of Amram, Amram of Cohath, Cohath of Levi,
and Levi was the third son of Jacob. But Jacob was the brother of Esau and
the son of Isaac, and Isaac was the son of Abraham.

3,6 But the genealogies of these persons are by no means plainly set
forth in the canonical scriptures — just parts of the subject as it pertains
to Elijah, in Chronicles. 12 However I have simply not found the fathers
of the three children, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, either in tra-
ditions or in apocryphal works. (7) What about that? Will they too —
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego — delude us into drawing wrong infer-
ences, wondering far too much about each [one’s] lineage, and concluding
that they have no fathers and mothers? Let’s hope not! (8) Apostolic tra-
ditions, holy scriptures and successions of teachers have been made our
boundaries and foundations for the upbuilding of our faith, 13 and God’s truth
has been protected in every way. No one need be deceived by worthless
stories.

4,1 But to return to the subject, the things they imagine about
Melchizedek. It is plain that this righteous man was holy, a priest of God,
and the king of Salem, but he was no part of the < order > in heaven,
and has not come down from heaven. (2) “No man hath ascended up to
heaven save he that came down from heaven, the Son of Man,” 14 says the
holy divine Word who tells no lies.

4,3 For when the sacred scripture proclaimed, and the Holy Spirit
expressly taught, the order of Melchizedek, they indicated the removal of
the priesthood from the ancient synagogue and the < physical* > nation to
a nation which is the finest and best, and which is not united by a com-
mon physical descent. (4) For this holy Melchizedek had no successors,
but neither did he suffer the abolition of his priesthood. He remained a
priest himself throughout his life and is still celebrated as a priest in the
scripture, since no one either succeeded him or abolished the priesthood
which he had during his time of service. (5) Thus our Lord too — though

12 Cf. 1 Chron 6:3-5.

13 Codex Urbinas, Codex Marcianus, Delahaye sig oixoSopojv, Holl xori oixoSopj.

14 John 3:13.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

he was not a man but the holy divine Word of God, God’s Son begot-
ten without beginning and not in time, ever with the Father but for our
sakes become man, of Mary and not of a man’s seed — our Lord, < receiv-
ing* > the priesthood, offers to the Father, having taken human clay so
as to be made a priest for us after the order of Melchizedek, which has
no succession. (6) For he abides forever, offering gifts for us — after first
offering himself through the cross, to abolish every sacrifice of the old cov-
enant by presenting the more perfect, living sacrifice for the whole world.
(7) He himself is temple, he himself sacrifice, himself priest, altar, God,
man, king, high-priest, lamb, sacrificial victim — become all in all for us
that life may be ours in every way, and in order to lay the changeless
foundation of his priesthood forever, no longer allotting it by descent and
succession, but granting that, in accordance with his ordinance, it may be
preserved in the Holy Spirit.

5.1 Others in their turn say < other > imaginary < things > about this
Melchizedek. (Since they lack a spiritual understanding of the things the
holy apostle said in this same Epistle to the Hebrews, they have been
condemned by a fleshly sentence.) (2) The Egyptian heresiarch Hieracas
believes that this Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit 15 because of “made like
unto the Son of God he abideth a priest continually,” 16 (3) as though this
is to be interpreted by the holy apostle’s “The Spirit maketh intercession
for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” 17

Anyone who understands the mind of the Spirit knows that he inter-
cedes with God for the elect. 18 But Hieracas too has gone entirely off the
track. (4) The Spirit never assumed flesh. And not having assumed flesh,
he could not be king of Salem and priest of anywhere. (5) In time, how-
ever, when 1 compose the refutation of Hieracas and his sect, 1 shall dis-
cuss this at length; for now, 1 shall resume the order of presentation.

6.1 But how many other fancies do others have about this Melchizedek!
Samaritans believe that he is Noah’s son Shem, 19 but it will be found that
they too are absurd. (2) The sacred scripture, which secures everything
with due order, has confirmed the truth in every respect; not for nothing

15 So at Jer. Ep. 73.1.1-2; also at 2.1, where Jerome attributes the idea to Origen and his
follower Didymus. Cf. Chrysost. De Melch. 3; Cyr. Alex. Glaph. In Gen. 1.2.7.

16 Heb 7:3.

17 Rom 8:26.

18 Rom 8:26 and cf. 8:27.

19 Jer. Ep. 73.5.4; Quaest. Hebraicae in Gen 1, PL 23, 961; Comment. Ad Isa. 41, PL 24,4416.
At 2 Enoch 71-72 Melchizedek is the son of Noah's brother Nir.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

has it listed the time periods, and enumerated the years of each patri-
arch’s life and succession.

6,3 For when Abraham was about eighty-eight or even ninety,
Melchizedek met him and served him loaves and wine, prefiguring the
symbols of the mysteries: (4) types < of the Lord’s body >, since our Lord
< himself > says, “I am the living bread” 20 ; and of the blood which flowed
from his side for the cleansing of the defiled, and the sprinkling and salva-
tion of our souls.

6,5 Now when he became the father of Abraham, Abraham’s father
Terah was seventy years old, and that made about 160 years. Nahor fathered
Terah at the age of seventy-nine, and that made 239 years. Serug fathered
Nahor at the age of 130, and that made 369 years. (6) Reu fathered Serug
when he was 132, and that came to the five hundred and first year. Peleg
fathered Reu when he was 130, and that made 631 years. Eber fathered
Peleg in the hundred and thirty-fourth year of his life, and that made
765 years.

6,7 Shelah fathered Eber in the two hundred thirtieth year of his life,
and that made 895 years. Cainan fathered Shelah in the hundred ninth
year of his life, and that made 1004 years. Arphaxad was 135 when he
fathered Cainan, and that made 1139 years. (8) And the Shem we spoke
of, whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arphaxad
in the hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1241 years
until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from
the slaughter of the kings Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal.

6,9 But Shem did not live that many years, as their foolish imagina-
tion would have it. Lie was 102 when he became the father of Arphaxad,
in the second year after the flood. “And after that he lived 500 years,”
as the sacred scripture says, “and begat sons and daughters, and died.” 21
(10) Now then, if he lived for 602 years and then died, how could he reach
the age of 1241 so that, after ten generations and 1241 years, they can
call Shem the son of Noah, who lived ten generations before Abraham,
Melchizedek? How greatly people can go wrong!

6,11 But if we go by the figure in other copies, there are about 628 years
from the date of Shem’s birth until the time of Abraham’s meeting with
Melchizedek, in the eighty-eighth or ninetieth year of Abraham’s life. Thus

20 John 6:51.

21 Cf. Gen 11:11.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

on no account can Shem have lived until Abraham’s time, to be thought
of as Melchizedek. And the Samaritans’ jabber also is all wrong.

7.1 In their turn, the Jews say that Melchizedek was righteous, good
and the priest of the Most High, as the sacred scripture says, but that
since he was the son of a harlot his mother’s name is not recorded, and his
father is not known. (2) But their silly assertion too has failed. Rahab was
a harlot, and she is in scripture. Zimri is in scripture too although he com-
mitted fornication, and Cozbi with him, even though she was a foreigner
and not of Israelite descent. < For the Savior receives harlots, if only they
repent through him* >. And as the holy Gospel said, “Whoso entereth not
by the door is a thief and not a shepherd.” 22

7,3 But some who are actually in the church put this Melchizedek in
various categories. Some suppose that he is the actual Son of God, 23 and
appeared to Abraham then in the form of a man. (4) But they too have
gone off the track; no one will ever become "like” himself. As the sacred
scripture says, “made Like unto the Son of God he abideth a priest con-
tinually.” 24 (5) Indeed “He whose descent is not counted of them received
tithes of Abraham;” 25 for since his descent is not counted from the Israel-
ites themselves, it is counted from other people. (6) Having listed all these
errors < which > I recall because of this sect, I describe them as though in
passing.

8.1 This sect makes its offerings in Melchizedek’s name, and says that
it is he who conducts us to God 26 and that we must offer to God through
him because he is an archon of righteousness 27 ordained in heaven by
God for this very purpose, a spiritual being and appointed to God’s priest-
hood. (2) And we must make offerings to him, they say, so that they may
be offered through him on our behalf, 28 and through him we may attain
to life. (3) Christ too was chosen, they say, to summon us from many ways

22 John 10:1.

23 Cf. NHC Melch. 25,4-26,4 “And [you crucified me] from the third hour [of the
Sabbath-eve] until [the ninth hour]. And after [these things I arose] from the dead. My
body] came out of [the tomb] to me. [. . . they did not] find anyone . . . They said to me, Be
[strong, 0 Melchizedek]] great [High Priest] of God [Most High].” See also 2 En. J 71.37,
where Christ seems to be identified with Melchizedek.

24 Heb 7:3.

25 Heb 7:6.

26 Perhaps cf. n. 2.

27 oipxwv earl St>cato<TUVv]7. At 2 En. J. 71.29 Melchizedek is “the priest to all holy priests,
the head of the priests of the future.”

28 For a comparable idea about offering see Pan 26,9,7.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

to this one knowledge. He was anointed by God and made his elect, for he
turned us from idols and showed us the way. After that the apostle was
sent and revealed Melchizedek’s greatness to us, and that he remains a
priest forever. (4) And see how great he is, and that the lesser is blessed by
the greater. (5) And thus, they say, Melchizedek also blessed the patriarch
Abraham, since he was greater [than Abraham]. And we are his initiates,
so that we too may be recipients of his blessing.

9,1 And how worthless all the sects’ notions are! See here, these too
have denied their Master who “bought them with his own blood” 29 —
(2) whose existence does not date from Mary as they suppose, but who is
ever with the Father as the divine Word, begotten of the Father without
beginning and not in time, as every scripture says. It was to him, not to
Melchizedek, that the Father said, “Let us make man in our image and
after our likeness.” 30

9,3 For even though Melchizedek was priest of God Most High in
his own generation and had no successors, he did not come down from
heaven. (4) The scripture said, not that he brought bread and wine down,
but that he brought them out to Abraham and his companions as though
from his palace, 31 to show the patriarch hospitality 32 as he passed through
his country. And he blessed Abraham for his righteousness, faithfulness
and piety. (5) For though the patriarch had been tried in everything, in
nothing had he lost his righteousness, but here too he had God’s assis-
tance against the kings who had attacked Sodom < like bandits > 33 and
carried off his nephew, the holy Lot. And he brought him back, with all
the booty and spoil.

9,6 Where can we not find proof that < the > Son was always with
the Father? For “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God;” 34 it did not say, “In the beginning
was Melchizedek,” or, “And Melchizedek was God.” (7) And again, “The
Lord came to Abraham, and the Lord rained fire and brimstone from the
Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrah. 35 And the apostle himself said, “One

29 Cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23.

30 Gen 1:26.

31 Klostermann, MSS (3c«7iXe1cov, Holl. paaikccov.

32 Klostermann, Codex Marcianus dnoSslidfiEvoi;, Holl and other MSS diroSsliogEvos.

33 Holl: Xr)OTpncw?, MSS dXr] 0 w$.

34 John 1:1.

35 Gen 19:24.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things.” 36

9,8 And lest someone say, “Well then, where is the Spirit, since he
speaks of ‘one’ and ‘one’?” — the Spirit must not act as its own guarantor. 37
For the sacred scripture is always preserved to serve as an example for
us. The apostle was speaking in the Holy Spirit and saying, “One God, of
whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”
He was in the Spirit saying this, for the intent was not to make the Trinity
deficient, (g) But the Lord himself plainly says, “Go baptize all nations in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 38 And the
apostle says in his turn, “One is the Spirit, dividing to every man as he will
to profit withal.” 39

9,10 There you are then, the Father! The Son! The Holy Spirit! And
nowhere does it say of Melchizedek that < he is resident > in the gifts or in
the heights. 40 There is no point in these people’s yapping about the false-
hoods and fictions of the stumbling blocks they encounter — not things
that originate in the truth, but in the hissing of the dragon itself, with his
ability to deceive and mislead each sect.

g,n Again, I have heard that some, who are further afield than all of
these and are excited by further pride of intellect, have dared to resort to
an unthinkable idea and arrive at a blasphemous notion, and say that this
same Melchizedek is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (12) What care-
less minds men have, and what deceived hearts, with no place for truth!
Since the apostle says that Melchizedek has no father and mother and is
without lineage, these people have gone wrong because of the sublim-
ity of the expression, have < foolishly* > supposed < that what is said of
Melchizedek* > corresponds with the Father of all, and have imagined a
blasphemous imposture.

9,13 For because God the almighty, the Father of all, has no father,
mother, beginning of days or end of life — for this is admitted by every-
one — they have fallen into foolish blasphemy by likening Melchizedek

36 1 Cor 8:6.

37 I.e., as the Speaker in the scriptures the Holy Spirit should not expressly commend
himself, since this would be a bad example for humankind. Cf. 57,5,7.

38 Matt 28:19.

39 1 Cor 12:11.

40 Holl: ep7ioXiT£UETai MSS: ScopeiTai.

MELCHIZEDEKIANS

to him because the apostle has spoken of Melchizedek in this way, not
noticing the other things that are said about him. (14) For it is said of
Melchizedek that “He was priest of God Most High.” 41 Now assuming that
Melchizedek is the Most High and the Father, then, as the priest of another
“Most High,” he cannot be the Father of all himself-serving another Most
High as priest.

9.15 Such confusion on people’s part, that will not perceive truth but
is bent on error! To give the final solution of the entire problem, the holy
apostle said, “He whose descent is not counted from them " — obviously
not; but it was counted from others — “received tithes of Abraham.” 42 And
again, he said, “who, in the days of his flesh, offered up supplications and
prayers to him that was able to save him” 43 — but it is plain that < the >
Father did not assume flesh.

9.16 But now that we have discussed them sufficiently too, let us leave
this sect, for we have struck it with the firm faith and its foundation, as
though we had hit a mousing viper with a rock and avoided its deadly
poison. For they say that the mousing viper does no immediate harm
to the one it bites, but that in time it destroys his body and infects its
victim with leprosy in every limb. (17) Similarly, if this heresy is
< implanted* > in their minds it < does* > people no apparent < harm >
when they first hear of these things. But the long-term effect of the words is
to sink into their minds, raise questions, and, as it were, cause the destruc-
tion of those who have not happened on the remedy of this antidote — the
refutation of this heresy, and the counter-argument to it which I have
given.

9,18 The mousing viper is not readily seen; it is active at night and does
its harm at that time, especially in Egypt. Thus those who do not know the
beast must realize that, when 1 compared it with the harm that is done by
this sect, I did not bring up the subject of the beast lightly, or as a slander;
it does this sort of injury. (19) But I shall move on to the others next, so as
to thank God for the privilege of keeping my promise in God.

41 Gen 14:18.

42 Heb 7:6.

43 Heb 5:7.

BARDESIANISTS

Against Bardesianists 1 36, but 56 of the series

1,1 Their successor was a person named Bardesanes. This Bardesanes, the
founder of the Bardesianist sect, was Mesopotamian and a native of the
city of Edessa. 2 (2) He was the finest sort of man at first, and while his
mind was sound composed no few treatises. 3 For originally he belonged
to God’s holy church, and he was learned in the two languages, Greek
and Syriac. 4

1,3 At first he became friends with the ruler of Edessa, Abgar, 5 a
very holy and learned man, and assisted him while taking a hand in his
education. He survived after Abgar’s death until the time of Antoninus
Caesar — not Antoninus Pius, but Antoninus Verus. 6 (4) He argued at
length against fate < in reply to > the astrologer Abidas, and there are
other works of his which are in accord with the godly faith. 7

1,5 He defied Antoninus’ companion Apollonius besides, by refusing
to say that he had denied that he called himself a Christian. He nearly
became a martyr, and in a courageous defense of godliness replied that
the wise do not fear death, which would come of necessity, < he said >,
even if he did not oppose the emperor. (6) And thus the man was loaded
with every honor until he came to grief over the error of his own sect
and became like the finest ship, which was filled with a priceless cargo
and [then] wrecked beside the cliffs of its harbor, losing all its freight and
occasioning the deaths of its other passengers as well.

2,1 For he unfortunately fell in with Valentinians, drew this poison and
tare from their unsound doctrine, and taught this heresy by introducing
many first principles and emanations himself, and denying the resurrec-
tion of the dead. 8

1 Epiphanius’ most likely source for this Sect is Eus. H. E. 4.30.1-3, although his memory
of it is faulty. Other accounts are found at Eus. Praep. Ev. 6.9.32; Hippol. Haer. 7.31.1; Jer.
Adv. Jov. 2.14.

2 Hippolytus makes him an Armenian, Haer. 7.31.1; Julius Africanus, a Parthian, 29;
Porphyrius, a Babylonian, De Abst. 4.17.

3 Cf. Eus H. E. 4.30.1.

4 Cf. Eus H. E. 4.30.1.

5 Abgar IV Manu. See Holl-Dummer II p. 338.

6 Epiphanius means Marcus Aurelius, but the emperor under whom Bardesanes flour-
ished would have been Caracalla or Elagabalus.

7 Portions of the Book of the Laws of the Lands, which is apparently Bardesanes' work
against astrology, seem to be preserved at Eus. Praep. Ev. 5.9.

8 Eusebius says that Bardesanes was an ex-Valentinian who later wrote against this
view, though he never abandoned it altogether, H. E. 4.30.3. Epiph conjectures the teaching

BARDESIANISTS

2,2 He uses the Law and the Prophets and the Old and the New Testa-
ments, besides certain apocrypha. (3) But he too, like all his predecessors
and successors, will be confounded because he has separated himself from
the truth and, as it were, from a brightly shining lamp turned into soot.

2,4 I have already spoken of the resurrection of the dead in many Sects;
however, it will do no harm to say a few words once more in my refutation
of this man. (5) For if you accept the Old Testament, Mister, and the New
Testament too, how can you not be convicted of corrupting the way of the
truth and separating yourself from the Lord’s true life?

2,6 For < it is plain > that, to become the earnest of our resurrection
and the firstborn from the dead, the Lord himself first died for us and rose
again. (7) And he did not suffer simply in appearance; he was buried, and
they bore his body to the grave. Joseph of Arimathea bears witness, and
the women bear witness who brought the unguents to the tomb and the
hundred pounds’ weight of ointment, that this was no phantom or appari-
tion . (8) The angels who appeared to the women are also witnesses that
“He is risen, he is not here; why seek ye the living among the dead?” 9 (9)
And they did not say that he had not died, but that he had risen — he who
suffered in the flesh but lives forever in the Spirit, and who, in his native
Godhead, is impassible; he who is eternally begotten of the Father on high,
but in the last days was pleased to be made man of the Virgin Mary, as St.
Paul testifies by saying, “made of a woman, made under the Law.” 10

2.10 Haven’t you yet heard the text, “This corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality?” * 11 Hasn’t the
prophet Isaiah convinced you by saying, “And the dead shall arise, and
they that are in the graves shall be raised up?” 12 And the Lord himself, by
saying, “And these shall be raised to life eternal, and these to everlasting
punishment?” 13

2.11 Or don’t you remember Abel’s conversation with God after his
death, and how it doesn’t say that his soul intercedes and cries out to
God, but that his blood does? But blood is not soul; the soul is in the
blood. (12) For the visible blood is body, but the soul resides invisibly in

of “first principles and emanations” from Eus.’ mention of Bardesanes' Valentinian con-
nection.

9 Cf. Luke 24:5-6.

10 Gal 4:4.

11 1 Cor. 15:53.

12 Isa 26:19.

13 Cf. Matt 25:46.

BARDESIANISTS

the blood. And your wrong belief is confounded from every standpoint,
Bardesanes, for it is demolished by the truth itself.

3,1 But since I have spoken at length on the topic of many first prin-
ciples, against those who say that there are such things, I shall not make
my discussion of this here a long one. As though in < passing >, however,
I shall mention how the holy apostle says, “To us God the Father is one,
of whom are all things and we in him; and the Lord Jesus Christ is one, by
whom are all things and we by him.” 14 (2) How can there be a plurality of
gods and many first principles if “Our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things and we by him, is one?” There is therefore one creator, not many
gods or many aeons. For Paul said, “If there be many so-called gods;” 15
(3) but he pronounced them “so-called” as though speaking < of > beings
which have no existence. But because of the so-called gods of the Greeks,
the ones they have made gods of — the sun and moon, the stars and the
like — he made this declaration, and ruled out the notion of all who have
fallen into error.

3,4 Now since the sound faith is preserved in every way as the support
and the salvation of the faithful, the nonsensical inventions of all the sects
have been overthrown. So has this man, overthrown, made of himself a
pitiable object and banished himself from life. (5) For the prophet tells
God’s holy church, “I will make thy stone a coal of fire, and thy founda-
tions sapphire, and thy walls precious stones, and thy battlements jasper.” 16
Then, afterwards, he says, “Every voice that rises up against thee, thou
shalt overcome them all. Against thee it shall not prevail.” 17 (6) Noth-
ing will prevail against the true faith, since “She is founded on the rock,”
and, as her king, bridegroom, Lord and Master, the holy divine Word, has
promised her, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” 18 To him,
the Father in the Son with the Holy Spirit, be glory, honor and might for-
ever and ever. Amen.

3,7 But since this sect too has been trampled underfoot, < let it lie* >,
struck with the wood of life, like a head [cut off] from a piece of a snake
and still wriggling. < But > let us ourselves give thanks to God, beloved,
and proceed once more to the examination of the rest.

14 1 Cor 8:6.

15 1 Cor 8:5.

16 Isa 54:11-12.

17 Cf. Isa 54:17.

18 Matt 16:18.

NOETLANS

Against Noetians 1 37, but 57 of the series

1,1 Another one, whose name was Noetus, arose in his turn after Barde-
sanes, not many years ago but about r3o years before our time, 2 an Asian
from the city of Ephesus. 3 (2) 4 By the inspiration of a strange spirit he
chose to say and teach things on his own authority which neither the
prophets nor the apostles < had proclaimed >, and which the church from
the beginning had neither held nor conceived of. On his own authority he
dared to say, with manic elation, that the Father suffered. (3) And then,
from further delirious conceit he called himself Moses, and his brother,
Aaron. 5

r,4 In the meantime, however, the blessed presbyters of the church
sent for Noetus because of the rumor about him, and questioned him
about all these things, and whether he had put forth this blasphemy of
the Father. 6 (5) At first he denied it when brought before the presbytery,
since no one before him had belched out this frightful, deadly bitterness.
(6) But later, after, as it were, infecting certain others with his madness
and winning about ten men over, inspired to greater pride and insolence
< and > grown bold, he began to teach his heresy openly. (7) The same
presbyters summoned him once more, and the men who unfortunately
had become acquainted with him, and asked again about the same things.
(8) But now, with his followers in error, Noetus struck his forehead and
openly opposed them. “What wrong have I done,” he demanded, “because
I glorify one God? 7 I know one God and none other besides him, and he
has been born, has suffered, and has died!” 8

r,g Since he held to this they expelled him from the church, with the
men he had instructed in his own doctrine. He himself has died recently
as has his brother, but not in glory like Moses; nor was his brother buried

1 Epiphanius’ source for this Sect is Hippolytus’ tractate, Contra Noetum, which is
taken by Pourkier, Hilgenfeld and Lipsius as the last chapter of Hippolytus' Syntagma, by
Schwarz and others as part of an Hippolytean homily. Noetus is also discussed at Filast.
Haer. 53; Hippol. Haer. 9.2.7-10; 10.27.

2 “Not many years ago” comes from Hippol. C. Noet. 1; Epiph has inserted the rest.

3 Hippol. C. Noet. 1; Filast Haer. 53.

4 1,2 is paraphrased from Hippol. C. Noet. 1.

5 Cf. Hippol. C. Noet. 1; Filast. Haer. 53.

6 Noetus’ examination before the “blessed presbyters” — terminology which is rather
unusual for Epiphanius — comes from Hippol. C. Noet. 1.

7 With all of this cf. Hippol. C. Noet. 1.

8 The formula, and the excommunication of Noetus, are taken from Hippol. C. Noet. 1.

NOETIANS

with honor like Aaron. They were cast out as transgressors, and none of
the godly would lay them out for burial.

r,ro Those whose minds he had corrupted confirmed this doctrine after-
wards under the influence of the following texts, which had influenced
their false teacher to begin with, (rr) 9 (For when he said under question-
ing by the presbytery that he glorified one God, they told him truthfully,
“We too glorify one God, but in the way we know is right. ( 12 ) And we
hold that Christ is one, but as we know the one Christ — the Son of God
who suffered as he suffered, died as he died, has risen, has ascended into
heaven, is at the right hand of the Father, will come to judge the quick
and the dead. We say these things because we have learned them from
the sacred scriptures, which we also know.”)

2,r 10 Those, then, who are offshoots of Noetus himself, and those who
derive from them, make much of this doctrine, and try to establish their
insane teaching from the following texts. Among them are God’s words
to Moses, “I am the God of your fathers. I am the first and I am the last.
Thou shalt have none other gods,” and so on. * 11 (2) They said accordingly,
“We therefore know him alone. If Christ came and was born, he himself is
the Father; he himself is the Son. Thus the same God is the God who < is >
forever, and who has now come — (3) as the scripture says, ‘This is thy
God, none other shall be accounted God besides him. He hath found out
every way of understanding and given it to Jacob his servant and Israel his
beloved. Afterwards he appeared on earth and consorted with men.’ 12 (4)
Again, they say, “do you see how, by saying that God himself is < the > only
God and appeared later himself, the sacred scriptures give us the wisdom
not to believe first in one God and then in another?”

2,5 13 Again, they make use of this further text: “Egypt hath wearied
and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the lofty men of Saba shall
pass over unto thee and be thy servants. And they shall walk behind
thee bound with chains, and shall bow down to thee and pray through
thee — for in thee is God and there is no God beside thee — Thou art God
and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Savior.” 14 (6) “Do you see,” they

9 1,11-12 closely follow Hippol C. Noet. 2.

10 2,1-3 closely follow Hippol. C. Noet. 2.

11 Cf. Exod 3:6; Isa 44:6; Exod 20:3.

12 Baruch 3:36-38.

13 2,5~7a closely follow Hippol. C. Noet. 2-3.

14 Isa 45:14-15.

NOETLANS

say, “how the sacred scriptures state that God is one, and declare that he
< has become > visible? And he is admittedly one, forever the same. (7) We
therefore say that there are not many gods but one God, the same Impas-
sible, himself the Father of the Son and himself the Son, who has suffered
to save us by his suffering. And we cannot say that there is another” —
having supposedly learned this confession of faith, and this impious con-
jecture and ruinous madness, from their master.

2,8 15 Next they cite other texts in their support — as their teacher said,
“The apostle also bears witness in the following words and says, “Whose
are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for evermore. Amen.’” 16 (g) But their account [of Christ]
is as one-sided as Theodotus’. Theodotus actually went to one extreme and
described him as a mere man. Noetus has one-sidedly described another
extreme in his own turn, with his belief that the same God the Father is
both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that he has suffered in the flesh, and
been born. (10) Theodotus’ followers have not told the truth, then, and
neither have this “Brainy” (No’^Tcq) — “Brainless,” actually — and his, since
the sacred scriptures refute them both, and all the erring.

3,1 To anyone whose mind is < sound* > in God, and who is enlight-
ened in sacred scripture and the Holy Spirit, their argument will appear
easy to refute and full of all sorts of nonsense. (2) The idea of claiming
that the Father, the Son, and the One who suffered are the same, is the
result of impudence and is < full > of blindness. 17 (3) How can the same
person be father and son [at once]? If he is a son he must be the son of
some person by whom he has been begotten. (4) But if he is a father,
he cannot possibly beget himself. In turn something called a son didn’t
beget itself; it was begotten by a father. How crazy people are, with their
fallacious reasoning! (5) For the fact is that the logical conclusion is not
as they suppose, but as the truth tells us through the sacred scripture.
The Lord states it at once by saying, “Lo, my beloved Son shall understand,
he whom I have chosen, whom my soul hath loved. I will put my Spirit
upon him.” 18 (6) And you see how the Father’s voice declares that there
is an actual Son upon whom he is putting his Spirit. (7) Next the Only-
begotten himself says, “Glorify thou me, Father, with the glory which I had

15 2,8-10 closely follows Hippol. C. Noet. 2-3.

16 Rom 9:5.

17 The first half of this sentence is paraphrased from Hippol. C. Noet. 3.

18 Cf. Isa 42:1; Matt 12:18.

NOETIANS

with thee before the world was.” 19 But someone who says, “Father, glorify
me,” is not calling himself father; he knows that the "father” is his father.
(8) And again, in another passage, “There came a voice from heaven, This
is my Son; hear ye him.” 20 And it did not say, “I am my Son, hear me,” or
again, “I have become a Son,” but, “This is my Son; hear him.”

3,9 And when he said, “I and the Father are one,” 21 he did not say,
“I and the Father am one,” but, “I and the Father are one.” 22 “I and the
Father,” with the definite article, and with “and” in the middle, means that
the Father is actually a father, and the Son actually a son.

4,1 And of the Holy Spirit, in turn, he says, “If 1 depart he shall come,
the Spirit of truth.” 23 This statement, “I am going and he is coming,” is
by far the clearest. Christ did not say, “I am going and / shall come,” but
with “1” and “he” showed that the Son is subsistent and the Holy Spirit is
subsistent. (2) And again, “The Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the
Father and receiveth of the Son” 24 is intended to show that the Father
is subsistent, the Son is subsistent, and the Holy Spirit is subsistent.
(3) And again, at the Jordan the Father spoke from above, the Son stepped
into the Jordan, and the Spirit appeared between them in the form of a
dove and came upon the Son, even though the Spirit had not taken flesh
or assumed a body. (4) But to avoid giving the impression that the Spirit
is identical with the Son, the Holy Spirit is portrayed in the form of a
dove, to ensure the perception of the Spirit as truly subsistent. (5) But
where else can 1 not find other arguments against these people who have
infected themselves with insanity? If there is any truth in their notion,
and in their worthless argument with no proof or force and no coherent
reasoning or meaning, the scriptures will have to be discarded 25 — the
scriptures, which on every page know the Father as a father, the Son as a
son, and the Holy Spirit as a holy spirit.

4,6 But what do you mean, Mister? Can those who truly worship the
Trinity be polytheists, the sons of the truth and of the only apostolic and
catholic church? That is not so! (7) Who will not say that the God of truth
is one, the Father almighty, the Source of the Only-begotten Son who is

19 John 17:5.

20 Matt 17:5.

21 John 10:30.

22 Hippolytus uses this argument at C. Noet. 9.

23 Cf. John 16:7.

24 John 15:26; 16:13; 14.

25 djTofAvpeai, not an Epiphanian word. Epiphanius is paraphrasing Hippol. C. Noet. 3.

NOETLANS

truly the divine Word, a Word subsistent, truly begotten of the Father
without beginning and not in time? (8) Hence the church proclaims with
certainty that God is one, a Father and a Son: “I am in the Father, and the
Father in me, and we two are one” 26 — that is, one Godhead, one will, and
one dominion.

4,9 From the Father himself the Spirit also proceeds — subsistent and
truly perfect, the Spirit of truth, who enlightens all, who receives of the
Son, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ. (10) The church, then,
knows one Godhead. There is one God, the Father of truth, a Father who
is perfect and subsistent; and a Son who is a perfect Son and subsistent;
and a Holy Spirit who is a perfect Holy Spirit and a subsistent — one
Godhead, one sovereignty, one dominion, (n) Thus the sacred scriptures
have everywhere plainly declared that God is one — that is, a co-essential
Trinity, forever of the same Godhead, the same dominion.

4,12 And your brainless argument has collapsed, in all respects, Brainy!
And now that this has been said, and in direct contradiction to Brainy’s
allegations, it is time to examine these from the beginning and to counter
his propositions, as follows. 27

5,1 First, since he advanced the proposition, “ ‘God is one, of whom are
all things and we in him, and the Lord Jesus Christ is one, for whom are
all things and we by him,’ ” 28 don’t you see how, by saying, “God is one, of
whom are all things and we for him?” 29 Paul is pointing out the oneness
of the first principle so as not to direct attention to many first principles
and lead men’s minds, [already] deceived about the nonsense of polythe-
ism, back to a plurality of gods. (2) For do you see how he has used one
name and one title, but without denying the Only-begotten God? For he
knows that he is Lord and knows that he is God; and he says, to certify
this, “And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”

5,3 However, by saying this of the Lord he did not mean that the Father
and the Son are the same, but showed that the Father is truly a father and
the Son truly a son. (4) For when he said “one God” of the Father, < he
did > not < say it > to deny the Godhead of the Son. (For if the Son is not
God he is not “Lord” either; but as he is “Lord,” he is also God.) Though
the holy apostle was compelled by the Holy Spirit to refer to one title, he

26 John 14:10; 10:30.

27 This transition is paraphrased from Hippol. C. Noet. 3.

28 1 Cor 8:6.

29 1 Cor 8:6.

NOETIANS

explained the faith for us by stating clearly that Christ is “one Lord,” and
so must surely be God.

5,5 But because he says, "one,” and [then] “one” [again, but does not
say “one” a third time], no one need think that he has left the number
of the Trinity unmentioned by failing to name the Holy Spirit. When
he named the Father and the Son “God” and “Lord,” he named them in
the Holy Spirit. (6) For by saying, “God is one, of whom are all things,” of
the Father, he did not deny the Father’s Lordship; nor, again, did he deny
Christ’s Godhead by saying, “and one Lord Jesus Christ” (7) As he was con-
tent with the one title in the Father’s case, and said “one God” although
it is plain that “Lord” is implied by “God” — so, in the case of the Son, he
was content with “one Lord,” but “God” is implied by “Lord.” (8) Thus he
did not jettison the Holy Spirit by mentioning [only] “Father” and “Son;”
as I said, he spoke in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never < speaks* > in
commendation of himself, or he might set us an example < of speaking* >
of ourselves and commending < ourselves >. (g) Thus “God the Father, of
whom are all things, is one, and the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, is one.” And the Holy Spirit is one, not different from God and still
subsistent, because he is Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of the Father,
and Spirit of Christ.

6,i 30 But I suppose we also need to speak of “Egypt hath wearied, and
the merchandise of the Ethiopians. And the lofty men of Saba shall pass
over unto thee and be thy servants. They shall walk behind thee, bound
with chains. They shall bow down to thee and pray through thee — for in
thee is God and there is no God beside thee — For thou art God and we
knew it not, O God, the God of Israel, the Savior.” 31 (2) Noetus will say,
“From so many texts that I’ve shown you, don’t you see that God is one?”
But not understanding what has been said, he villainously mutilates the
scriptures, gives crooked explanations, cites the lines out of sequence and
does not quote them consistently and exactly — he or the Noetians who
stem from him — or expound them in order. (3) As some < will name >
a bad dog “Leo,” call the totally blind keen-sighted, and say that gall is
candy — and as some have termed vinegar honey, and some have named
the Furies the Eumenides — so it is with this man and his followers. (4) He
has been named Brainy, but he is brainless as are his brainless followers,
and he has no idea of the consequences of his statements and their asser-

30 6,1-2 closely follow Hippol. C. Noet. 4.

31 Isa 45:14-15.

NOETLANS

tions. To them the holy apostle’s words, “Understanding neither what they
say nor whereof they affirm,” 32 are applicable.

7,i 33 For you see what the sacred scriptures said earlier on, brothers,
or rather, what the Lord himself said, as we read at the beginning of the
passage. It is from this that we must explain the whole of the truth in the
passage itself, and the whole of the subject of it. We read, (2) "Inquire of
me concerning my sons and my daughters, and < concerning > the works
of my hands command ye me. I made the earth and man upon it; with
my hand I established the heavens. I gave commandment to all the stars;
I raised up a king with righteousness, and all his paths are straight. He
shall build my city and restore my captivity, not with ransoms nor with
gifts; the Lord of hosts hath spoken.” 34 (3) Only then does he say, “Egypt
hath wearied and the merchandise of the Ethiopians,” and so on [until]
“that God is in thee.” 35

7,4 But in whom, should we say? In whom but the Father’s Word? For
the divine Word is truly the Son, and the Father is known in him, as he
says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” 36 and, “I have glorified
thy name on the earth.” 37

7,5 38 Then again, “I have raised up a king.” 39 Don’t you see that this
is the Father’s own voice, which raised up the true Word from itself to be
king over all — the Word truly begotten of him, without beginning and
not in time? (6) And it raised him up again, this very king, as the holy
apostle says, “If the Spirit of him that raised up Christ dwell in you, he that
raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” 40
(7) Thus the prophet’s words agree with the apostle’s, and the apostle’s
with the Gospels’, and the Gospels’ with the apostle’s, and the apostle’s
with the prophet’s; for Isaiah says, “I have raised up a king,” and Paul says,
“He that raiseth up Christ from the dead.”

7,8 41 But the words, “God is in thee,” < show > how mysteriously and
marvelously the sacred scripture describes everything. The Godhead’s

32 1 Tim 1:7.

33 7,1-4 closely follow Hippol C. Noet. 4.

34 Isa 45:11-13.

35 Isa 45:14.

36 John 14:9, cf. Hippol. C. Noet. 4.

37 John 17:4.

38 7,5~7a closely follow Hippol. C. Noet. 4.

39 Isa 45:13.

40 Rom 8:11.

41 7,8-10 are freely paraphrased from Hippol. C. Noet. 4.

NOETIANS

< dwelling > in the flesh as in a temple was foreseen and foretold to the
hope of mankind through its turning to God. (9) For the Son of God, the
divine Word who dwells as God in his holy humanity and human nature
as in a sacred city and holy temple, says of this holy temple, “Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” 42 (10) For < the > divine
Word who has been sent from the Father in the flesh mystically reveals all
things. To show a bond of spiritual love he embraced the flesh, shrinking
himself despite his divine vastness — the Word himself, born of a virgin
through the Holy Spirit; the Son of God who is one and has made himself
one, in flesh and spirit, as the scripture says, “He that descended is the
same also as he that ascended, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” 43

8,i 44 What will Brainy say, then, in his brainlessness? Was there flesh
in heaven? Obviously not. Then how can the One who descended from
heaven be the same as the One who ascended? This is meant to show that
the Word who has come is not from below but has descended from on
high, since he was made man in the flesh, not by a man’s seed but by mak-
ing his complete human nature of spirit and flesh. (2) And so, to show the
oneness of the union of the Word and his manhood, he said that He who
came from on high has ascended on high in the perfection of Godhead.
(3) For now the Word, which once was not flesh but spirit, has been made
flesh of the Spirit and the Virgin — He who was offered to the Father as a
perfect Word, though before this, in heaven, he was not flesh.

8,4 What was the One who was in heaven, then, but the Word who was
sent from heaven? To show that he was the same divine Word on earth
and < in > heaven, changeless and unalterable, he possessed his oneness
with the one Godhead, united with it by the Father’s might. (5) For he
was the Word, was God forever, was spirit, was might; and he adopted
the name which was common and comprehensible to men, and was
called Son of Man 45 though he was Son of God. (6) And the name was
pronounced beforehand in the prophets because it was to apply to him,
although it was not yet in the flesh. Thus Daniel said, “I saw one like unto
a Son of Man coming upon the clouds.” 46 (7) And the prophet was right to
give the Word this name < when he was > in heaven, and call him whom
he saw by the Holy Spirit Son of Man, since he observed the future before

42 John 2:19.

43 Cf. Eph 4:9; John 3:13.

44 8,1-7 closely follow Hippol C. Noet. 4.

45 Cf. Hippol. C. Noet 7.

46 Dan 7:13.

NOETLANS

its arrival and named the Word Son of Man before he was in the flesh.
(8) And thus, putting the earlier event later, the Only-begotten says, “No
man hath ascended up to heaven save he that came down from heaven,
the Son of Man.” 47 He did not mean that he was flesh in heaven but < that >
he was to descend from heaven, and was to be known by this name.

9,i 48 But what is it that you’re about to say, Mister? “ ‘This is our God,
and none can be accounted God besides him?’” 49 And that was quite
right! The apostle too affirms it by saying, “Whose are the fathers and of
whom, according to the flesh, came Christ, who is God over all.” 50 Since
Christ teaches us this himself by saying, “All things are delivered unto me
of my Father,” 51 this makes him God over all. (2) And he expounds it
marvelously: Christ is He Who Is (6 wv), God over all (6 £7ii 7idvTwv 0 e 6?).
(3) For John testifies to this by saying, “Thatwhich was from the beginning,
which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled.” 52 And
again, in Revelation he says, “He who is from the beginning and is to come,
the Almighty.” 53 He was absolutely right; for when he said, “All things are
delivered unto me of my Father,” he appended <“the Father”> precisely as
he should have. Though he is God over all, he has a Father of his own. And
< this becomes apparent* > when he says, “I go unto my Father.” 54 To
which Father could he go, Brainless, if he were the Father himself?

10, 1 55 Or again, he says, “That they may be one, as thou and I are
one.” 56 The scripture constantly guards against men’s falls into extremes,
and recalls their minds from all places to the middle way of the truth.
(2) To those who think that the Son is different from the Father — I mean
as Arius and other sects do — it says, “I and the Father are one.” 57 (3) But
to those who think that the Father and the Son are the same because
it has said, “I and the Father are one,” the scripture says, “Make them to
be one as I and thou are one,” 58 shaming Noetus and his school by the
reference to oneness of the disciples. (4) For how could Peter, John and

47 John 3:13.

48 9, 1-3 closely follows Hippol. C. Noet. 5.

49 Bar 3:36.

50 Rom 9:5.

51 Matt 11:27.

52 1 John 1:1.

53 Cf. Rev 1:8.

54 John 20:17.

55 10,1-5 closely follow Hippol. C. Noet. 7.

56 Cf. John 17:22.

57 John 10:30.

58 Cf. John 17:21-22. Hippolytus argues against Noetus from this text at C. Noet. 7.

100

VALESIANS

the rest be identically one? But since he [is one with the Father] in one
unity of Godhead and in purpose and power, < he indicated as much* >,
to allay any suspicion that arises against the truth from either standpoint.
(5) And the holy apostle Philip < witnesses to this* > by saying, “Show us
the Father.” And the Lord replied, “He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father.” 59 But he did not say, “I am the Father.” (6) He meant himself
when he said, “me,” but did not mean himself when he said, “hath seen
the Father.” “The Father” is one thing, “me” is something else, and “I” is
something else. (7) If he himself were the Father, he would say, “I am.”
But since he is not the Father himself but the Son, he truthfully says, “He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” to refute the blasphemy of Arius,
which separates the Son from the Father.

10,8 And so, since every scripture has plainly laid down our way with
regard to the truth, let us halt < here >. Along with the other sects we have
maimed Noetus and his sect, I mean of Noetians, like the so-called agate
dragon, which cannot turn either right or left when it pursues someone,
(g) < And > since we have escaped his unsound teachings and his school’s,
let us give our attention to the rest by the power of God, to describe and
refute the heretical sayings against the truth which they have invented.

Against Valesians. * 1 38, but 58 of the series

1,1 I have often heard of Valesians, but have no idea who Vales < was>,
where he came from, or what his sayings, admonitions or utterances

< were >. (2) The name, which is Arabic, leads me to suppose that he
and his sect are still in existence, as suspect — < for* >, as I said,

— that there are some at Bacatha, in the
land of Philadelphia beyond the Jordan. (3) The locals call them Gnos-
tics, but they are not Gnostics; their ideas are different. But what I have
learned about them is the following:

1,4 Most of them were members of the church until a certain time,
when their foolishness became widely known and they were expelled
from the church. All but a few are eunuchs, and they have the same beliefs
about principalities and authorities that < the Sethians, Archontics* > and
others do. (5) And when they take a man as a disciple, as long as he is still
un-castrated he does not eat meat; but when they convince him of this, or

59 John 14.8-9. Hippolytus argues against Noetus from this text at C. Noet. 7.

1 This group is mentioned only by Epiphanius. His sources are clearly oral.

VALESIANS

101

castrate him by force, he may eat anything, because he has retired from
the contest and runs no more risk of being aroused to the pleasure of lust
by the things he eats.

1,6 And not only do they impose this discipline on their own disci-
ples; it is widely rumored that they have often made this disposition of
strangers when they were passing through and accepted their hospitality.
(7) They seize them [when they come] inside, bind them on their backs
to boards, and perform the castration by force.

1,8 And this is what I have heard about them. Since I know where they
live, and this name is well known in those parts and I have learned of no
other name for the sect, I presume that this is it.

2,1 But these people are really crazy. If they mean to obey the Gospel’s
injunction, “If one of thy members offend thee, cut it off from thee. It
is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven halt or blind, or
crippled” 2 — how can anyone be maimed in the kingdom? (2) For if the
kingdom of heaven makes all things perfect, it can have no imperfection
in it. And since the resurrection is a resurrection of the body, all the mem-
bers will be raised and not one of them left behind. (3) And if any member
is not raised, neither will the whole body be raised. And if just the one
member that causes offense is left behind, none of the members will be
raised at all, for they have all caused us to offend. (4) Who is going to tear
his heart out? And yet the heart is the cause of offenses at every turn, for
scripture says, “From within proceed fornication, adultery, uncleanness
and such like.” 3 All right, who will tear his heart out?

2,5 But if, in accordance with some people’s stupidity and impiety, the
body is not raised, how will this Valesian rule make any difference? If
none of the members enter the kingdom of heaven, what further need is
there to be short one member, when the others do not accomplish this?
(6) But if the body is raised — and it is — how can there still be bodily
mutilation in the kingdom of heaven? How can a kingdom of heaven con-
taining bodies which are damaged not be unfit for the glory of its inhabit-
ants? (7) And if the offending member must be cut off at all, then it has
been cut off and not sinned! But if it has been cut off and not sinned, since
it didn’t sin it ought to rise first of all.

2 Cf. Matt 5:29-30.

3 Mark 7:21-22.

102

VALESIANS

3.1 But by their audacity in performing this rash act they have set
themselves apart and made themselves different from everyone. Because
of what has been removed they are no longer men; and they cannot be
women because that is contrary to nature.

3.2 Besides, the name of the contest’s crown and prize has already
been given, and these people will not appear in any of the three categories
of eunuch the Lord has mentioned. (3) He says, “There are some eunuchs
which were so born from their mother’s womb.” 4 Those eunuchs are not
responsible for their condition, and certainly have no sin, because they
were born that way. On the other hand there is nothing to their credit
either, since they cannot do < anything like that > — I mean anything
sexual — because they lack the divinely created organs of generation.
(4) But neither can they have the kingdom of heaven as their reward for
being eunuchs, since they have no experience of the contest. (5) Even
though they have experienced desires, since they lack the ability to do
what should not be done, neither do they have a reward for not doing it.
They haven’t done the thing, not because they didn’t want to but because
they couldn’t. This is the way of the first type of eunuch the Lord men-
tions, the one that is born a eunuch. Because of their operation the Vale-
sians cannot be any of these.

4,1 “And there are eunuchs,” the Savior says, “which were made eunuchs
of men.” Valesians are none of these either. They — the eunuchs who are
“made eunuchs of men” 5 — are made in the service of a king or ruler.
(2) From jealousy and suspicion of their wives, some barbarian kings or
despots take boys when they are only children and make eunuchs of them
so that they can be entrusted with their wives, as I said, when they are
grown. (3) And this has been the usual reason for these eunuchs. I imagine
that this is < the origin of > the term, “eunuch.” The “eunuch” can be “well-
disposed” (Euvouq) because his members have been removed, and with his
organs removed he cannot have sexual relations. (4) So this is another
category of eunuch, the kind that is taken in childhood and made eunuchs
by men, but not for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

4,5 “And there be eunuchs,” says the Savior, “which have made them-
selves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” 6 Who can these be but
the noble apostles, and the virgins and monks after them? (6) John and

4 Matt 19:12.

5 Matt 19:12.

6 Matt 19:12.

VALESIANS

103

James, the sons of Zebedee, who remained virgin, surely did not cut their
members off with their own hands, and did not contract marriage either;
they engaged in the struggle in their own hearts, and admirably won the
fame of the crown of this contest. (7) And all the millions after them who
lived in the world without spouses and won the fame of this contest in
monasteries and convents. They had no relations with women, but com-
peted in the most perfect of contests.

4,8 So it is with Elijah in the Old Testament, and with Paul, who says,
“To the unmarried I say that it is good for them if they remain even as I am;
but if they cannot contain, let them marry.” 7 (g) Now in what state did
he “remain?” For if he had been a eunuch, and his imitators had remained
like him in obedience to his “Remain as I” — how could a eunuch marry if
he could no longer contain himself, in accordance with “Let them marry
and not burn?” 8 You see that he is speaking of continence, not of the
mutilation of one’s members.

4,10 But if they claim to have made themselves eunuchs for the king-
dom of heaven’s sake, how can they distinguish themselves from [the case
covered by] the text, "There are eunuchs which were made eunuchs of
men?” 9 (11) For if one makes himself a eunuch with his own hands, he is
a man, and his hands have done this infamous thing. And even though he
could not do it himself but was made a eunuch by others, he still cannot
be a eunuch “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” because he was “made a
eunuch by men,” whether by his own hand or the hand of others.

4,12 He will be deprived of his crown and prize as well, however, and
have no further credit for abstaining from sexual relations. With the mem-
bers which are needed for them removed, he cannot engage in them.
(13) But for one who injures his own member, and one who cuts down
another person’s vineyard, the sentence is one and the same. He has not
lived as God wills, but has conspired to rebel against his creator, the Lord
and God.

4,14 But such a man will still feel desire. The eunuch in the sage’s
proverb is not exempt from desire, < but desires* > because he cannot
gratify his desire, as it says, (15) “The desire of a eunuch to deflower a
virgin.” 10 And < their silliness has* > all < come to nothing* >. How much
nonsense of all sorts has been invented in the world!

7 1 Cor 7:8-9.

8 Cf. 1 Cor 7:9.

9 Matt 19:12.

10 Sir 20:4.

104

CATHARI

4,16 And this is what I know about them. And so, since I have spoken
briefly of them and, as I said, believe that they are the ones, let us leave
them behind and laugh at < them >, (17) like a two-stinged scorpion which
is the opposite of its ancestors because it has horns and claws, and which,
with its sting, resists the norm of God’s holy church. Trampling them with
firmly placed sandal — that is, with the Gospel’s exact words — let us end
our discussion of their foolishness here, and go on as usual to the rest.

Against the impure “Purists” 1 ( Cathari ). 55, but 59 of the series

1,1 A group called the “Purists” arose after these, founded, as it is com-
monly said, by one Navatus. 2 Navatus was at Rome during the perse-
cution which came before Maximian’s — I believe it was Decius’ then, or
Aurelian’s. (2) Because of those who had lapsed during the persecution
he, along with his followers, became proud, would not communicate with
persons who had repented after persecution, and adopted this heresy by
saying that < such people > cannot be saved. There is one repentance, but
no mercy for those who have fallen away and transgress after baptism.

r,3 We ourselves say that there is one repentance, and that this salva-
tion comes through the laver of regeneration. But we do not ignore God’s
lovingkindness, (4) since we know the message of the truth, the Lord’s
mercy, nature’s pardonability, the soul’s fickleness, the weakness of the
flesh, and the way everyone’s senses teem with sins. “No man is sinless
and pure of spot, not if he liveth even a single day upon the earth.” 3
1,5 Perfect penitence comes with baptism but if someone falls [after-
wards] God’s holy church does not lose him. She gives him a way back, and
after repentance, reform. (6) For God said, “Thou hast sinned, be silent!” 4
to Cain, and the Lord told the paralytic, “Lo, thou art made whole; sin no
more.” 5 The Lord recalls Peter too after his denial, and in the place of
the three denials, challenges him three times to confession — “Peter, lovest

1 Pourkier (p. 382ft) suggests that Epiphanius’ composition is based on Canon 8 of the
Council of Nicaea (PG 137 261AB). Contemporary information about the Novatian schism,
with which this Sect deals, is found at Cyprian of Carthage, Epp. 40-51 and Novatian's own
Epistle, Clergy of Rome/Cyprian Ep. 30. Cf. also Eus. H. E. 6.43 (Dionysius of Alexandria);
Basil of Caesarea Ep. 188, Canon 11; Ep. 190 Canon 47; Chrysost. Horn. 6 In Heb.

2 Navatus was Novatian’s sympathizer at Carthage, and the leader of the Novatianists
there. Epiphanius’ notice may be based on a faulty memory of Eus. H. E. 6.43.

3 Job 14:4-5.

4 Gen 4:7.

5 John 5:14.

CATHARI

105

thou me? Peter, lovest thou me? Peter, lovest thou me?” — and says, “Feed
my sheep.” 6

2,1 But the apostle’s exact words are their downfall. He says, “It is
impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the
good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall
away, to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to them-
selves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (2) For the
earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth
forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing. But
that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing;
whose end is to be burned.” 7 (3) And it is in fact impossible to renew
those who have been renewed once and have fallen away. Christ cannot
be born any more to be crucified for us, nor can anyone crucify again the
not yet crucified Son of God. Nor can anyone receive a second baptism;
there is one baptism, and one renewal. (4) But in order to heal the church
and care for its members, the holy apostle at once prescribes their cure
and says, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things
that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrigh-
teous to forget your good work.” 8

2.5 And you see how he has declared once and for all that there can
be no second renewal; but he has not cut those who are still penitent off
from salvation. Indeed, he has shown them the accompaniments to salva-
tion, and that God is their helper because of their good works, and that he
is the Lord of those who, even after transgressions, perform full penance
and turn and reform.

2.6 The holy word and God’s holy church always accept repentance,
though not to weaken those who are finishing their course, or to make
them lax; still, she does not block God’s grace and lovingkindness, but
knows the nature of every case. (7) For as one who has lost his virginity
cannot < recover > it physically since nature does not permit this, so it
is with one who has fallen into major sins after baptism. (8) And as one
who has fallen from virginity has continence for a second dignity, so he
who has fallen into major sin after baptism has < reform > for a second
healing — not as virtuous as the first, but he has the second healing he has

6 John 21:1=;: 16; 17.

7 Heb 6:4-8.

8 Heb 6:9-10.

io6

CATHARI

received, one not thrust out from life. God’s word, then, does not deny the
reward of those who labor in penance.

3.1 And next, the same people have pressed on from this and invented
some other things. For they too say that they have the same faith which we
do, but they will not communicate with the twice-married. 9 For if some-
one marries a second wife after baptism, they never admit him again.

3.2 But this is perfectly silly. It is as though someone were to see a per-
son swimming in the water, and plunge into the water without knowing
how to swim, and drown because he had no experience or understanding
of the technique of those who keep afloat with their hands and feet, but
thought that the water simply buoys the man up without his own hands.
(3) Or suppose that someone were to hear of a ruler punishing the doers
of < evil > deeds right down to the smallest, and think that the same pen-
alty applies to all, so that the punishment for murder is the same as the
punishment for someone who slanders or has a < serious* > quarrel with
his neighbor. (4) Or suppose that one were only a private citizen and saw
someone with a governor’s authority to punish criminals draw his sword
against sorcerers and blasphemers or the impious, and after seeing people
punished supposed that all are authorized to punish such guilt and chose
to mimic the same behavior and kill people himself, supposedly judging
malefactors. (5) But he would be arrested and punished himself, since he
had no such authority from the emperor to do such things, and because
he supposed that the same sentence applied to all by law, thus condemn-
ing himself to death as a wrongdoer through his own ignorance and lack
of understanding. (6) The Purists have similarly lost everything by confus-
ing everyone’s duties. From not understanding the exact nature of God’s
teaching they have mistakenly taken another path, unaware that this 10 is
not the tradition and following of the sacred scripture.

4,1 For they have assumed that what is enjoined upon the priesthood
because of the preeminence of priestly service applies equally to every-
one. They have heard, “The bishop must be blameless, the husband of one
wife, continent; likewise the deacon * 11 and the presbyter,” but not under-
stood the limitation of the ordinances. (2) Since Christ’s incarnation, in
fact, because of the priesthood’s superior rank, God’s holy Gospel does not
accept men for the priesthood after a first marriage, if they have remarried

9 This prohibition, as well as the refusal of communion to penitent lapsees, is con-
demned by Canon 8 of the Council of Nicaea.

10 Klostermann ouy auTV), MSS ow av tv).

11 1 Tim 3:2; 6.

CATHARI

107

because their first wife died. And God’s holy church observes this with
unfailing strictness. (3) She does not even accept the husband of one wife
if he is still co-habiting with her and fathering children. She does accept
the abstinent husband of one wife, or a widower, as a deacon, presbyter,
bishop and subdeacon, [but no other married men], particularly where
the canons of the church are strictly enforced. 12

4.4 But in some places, you will surely tell me, presbyters, deacons and
sub-deacons are still fathering children [while exercising their office.] This
is not canonical, but is due to men’s occasional remissness of purpose, and
because there is no one to serve the congregation.

4.5 Since, by the Holy Spirit’s good appointment, the church always
sees what is fittest, she knows to take great care that God’s services be
performed “without distraction,” 13 and that spiritual functions be fulfilled
with the best disposition. (6) I mean that because of the functions and
needs which arise unexpectedly, it is appropriate that the presbyter, dea-
con and bishop be free for God. (7) If the holy apostle directs even the
laity to “give themselves to prayer for a time,” 14 how much more does he
give this direction to the priest? I mean to be undistracted, leaving room
for the godly exercise of the priesthood in spiritual employments.

4,8 But < this > can be tolerated < in > the laity as a concession to
weakness — even remarriage after the first wife’s death by those who can-
not stop with the first wife. 15 (g) And the husband of [only] one wife is
more highly respected and honored by all members of the church. But if
the man could not be content with the one wife, who had died, < or > if
there has been a divorce for some reason — fornication, adultery or some-
thing else — and the man marries a second wife or the woman a second
husband, God’s word does not censure them or bar them from the church
and life, but tolerates them because of their weakness. 16 (10) The holy

12 For other statements of the requirement of clerical continence see Eus. Demon. Ev.
1.9.31; Cyr. Cat. 12.25; Council of Elvira, Canon 26.

13 1 Cor 7:35.

14 1 Cor 7:5.

15 Lay widows and widowers are permitted to remarry at Hermas Mand. 4.41; Clem.
Alex. Strom. 3.84.2; after a period of continence at Council of Laodicea, Canon 1; Bas. Caes.
Ep. 188, Canon 4.

16 Because this apparently lax attitude toward divorce is surprising in Epiphanius,

Riggi (“Nouvelle lecture”) returns practically to the text of Petavius, though with some
modifications: Kod 6 pev piav ev E7ro:ivu peiijovi 7rapa iracnv xoi? Exxky]d“?°pE v ° ll 5

svu7rapxEi. Ou [instead of 6] Se pvj SuvauGei? xy) pia dpxecrSyjvai xekeuxv]c7£xc7V]. "Evexev xivo$
jrpoqxicreu? 1 ) nopveiap vj poi/siap vj xaxvji; aixiap x w P la 'F°G Y £V0 k^ V0U > cruvcupOevxa Seuxepa
yuvaixi, vj [instead of vj] yuvv] Seuxepu dvSpl oux aixiaxai, 6 Geiop koyop ouS’ anb xvjp exxXvjatap

io8

CATHARI

word and God’s holy church show mercy to such a person, particularly if
he is devout otherwise and lives by God’s law — not by letting him have
two wives at once while the one is still alive, but < by letting > him marry
a second wife lawfully if the opportunity arises, after being parted from
the first.

4,11 [If this were not the case] the apostle would not tell the widows,
“Let them marry, bear children, guide the house.” 17 Nor, to the man who
had his father’s wife and had been delivered “to Satan for the destruc-
tion of the flesh that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord,” 18
would he say in turn, “Confirm your love toward him, lest such a one be
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.” 19 (12) For he went on to say, ‘To
whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also. Therefore if I forgave anything,
for your sakes forgave I it in the person of the Lord lest Satan should get
an advantage over us. For we are not ignorant of his devices.” 20 And see
how he allows repentance even after a transgression.

5,1 And again the Lord says, “Forgive one another your trespasses, that
your Father which is in heaven may also forgive you.” 21 (2) Moreover, he
says in another passage, “And I shall bewail many among you that have
transgressed and not repented” 22 as though to intimate that, even though
they have transgressed and repented, they are acceptable and will not be
cast off. For the Lord knows what he will do with each.

5,3 And anyone can see that the rule of the truth is of this nature. After
the first repentance through the laver of regeneration, by which repen-
tance everyone is renewed, there is no second repentance of this sort.
(4) For there are not two baptisms but one, Christ was not crucified twice
but once, nor did he die for us and rise twice. And this is why we need
to take care, or we may lose the crown of our renewal by transgression.

xai ryjs £wyjs oiix «jtoXv]puttei, a^Xa SiaPatrcdiJsi 81a to cotSeve?. "The husband of only one
wife is held in higher respect and honor by all members of the church [but] not [if he]
could not be content with the one wife who died. If there has been a divorce for some
reason, for adultery, fornication, or an evil charge, the woman [who has married] a second
husband cannot blame [her ex-husband] who has married a second wife. Neither does the
word of God bar them from the church and life, but bears with their weakness.” However,
Epiphanius’ scriptural citations at 4,11-5,2 suggest that leniency is indeed his point, and
stylistically, abrupt asyndeta in this sort of context are unusual in Epiphanius.

17 1 Tim 5:14.

18 Cf. 1 Cor 5:1; 5.

19 2 Cor 2:8; 7.

20 2 Cor 2:10.

21 Matt 6:14; Mark 11:25.

22 2 Cor 12:21.

CATHARI

109

(5) But if someone does transgress and is “overtaken in a fault,” as the
apostle says, “ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit
of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” 23 If, then,
if anyone is overtaken < in > a fault, no matter which, let him repent.

(6) God accepts repentance even after baptism, if one falls away. How he
deals with such a person, he alone knows — “Unsearchable are his judg-
ments, and his ways past finding out.” 24 (7) We must not judge before
the [second] advent, “until the Lord come, who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and then the praise of every man will be
manifest”, 25 “For the day will declare it, for it is revealed in fire.” 26

6,1 Thus to those who have sinned after baptism we neither promise
freedom unconditionally, nor deny them life. For God is “merciful and
pitiful,” 27 and “hath given a way of return to the penitent.” 28 (2) The first
is plain; as for the second, we know that God is merciful, if we repent
of our transgressions with our whole souls. He holds life, salvation and
lovingkindness in his hand, and what he does is known to him alone; but
no one can lose by repentance, and no one who repents of all his faults
has been refused.

6,3 How much more, surely, [must this apply to] one who is lawfully
married to a second wife! The first wife is a divine ordinance; the second,
a concession to human weakness. And even if one marries a further wife
[after the second], his weakness is still tolerated. (4) For scripture says,
“A wife is bound by law so long as her husband liveth. But if her husband
be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, < only in the
Lord >.” 29 Scripture declares her unquestionable freedom from sin [if she
remarries] after her husband’s death, and with its addition, < that is* >,
“in the Lord,” sets < the limit* > [to this] freedom. (5) Thus the woman is
not cut off from the Lord if she marries another husband after her hus-
band’s death; nor is the man if he marries a second wife after his wife’s
death — “only in the Lord,” as the apostle says. (6) And he indeed says,
“But she is happier if she so abide,” 30 < but he does not command this.
He does, however, command* >, “in the Lord.” And this means, “not in

23 Gal 6:1.

24 Rom 11:33.

25 1 Cor 4:5.

26 1 Cor 3:13.

27 Ps 110:4; 111:4.

28 Sir 17:24.

29 1 Cor 7:39.

30 1 Cor 7:40.

110

CATHARI

fornication, adultery or an illicit love affair, but with a good will, openly,
in lawful wedlock, abiding by the faith, the commandments, good works,
piety, fastings, good order, almsdeeds, zeal, the doing of good. (7) When
these accompany and remain with them, they do not render them worth-
less or unfruitful at the Lord’s coming.

6,8 The priesthood ranks first and has the strictest requirements in
everything, but moderation and forbearance are shown the laity, so that
all may be taught and all shown mercy, (g) For the Lord is merciful, and
mighty to save all, by their orderliness and true faith in the purity of the
gospel. For he alone is pure. (10) These people who call themselves “pure”
make themselves impure on just these grounds; whoever declares himself
pure has condemned himself outright for impurity.

7,1 It is the height of stupidity for persons of this sort to suppose that
they can pass such a judgment on the entire laity for one thing — even if
it were true. But we should realize that no soul is charged for this reason
alone. And < one does not > become virtuous in this way alone, (2) but
also by not being abusive; not swearing any oath true or false but say-
ing, “Yea, yea,” and, “Nay, nay”, not being treacherous, not slandering, not
stealing, not trafficking. (3) The filth of our sins accumulates from all of
these, for “As a peg will be sharpened between two stones,” says scripture,
“so will sin between buyer and seller.” 31 (4) And < who can doubt* > that,
out of the whole body of Purists, < some > < must be* > drunkards, traf-
fickers, covetous, or usurers? [Who can doubt] that < they too >, surely,
have such faults and others like them, < and > and that lies too follow in
the wake of each? (5) How can they call themselves pure, as though, for
this one reason, they were assured of the full divine forgiveness of all their
faults? They have not learned the precise interpretation of the Gospel, or
for whom it has reserved this strict rule against second marriage.

7.6 Those too who have fallen away through persecution, if they
accept full penance, sitting in sackcloth and ashes and weeping before
the Lord — the Benefactor has the power to show mercy even to them. No
ill can come of repentance.

7.7 Thus the Lord and his church accept the penitent, as Manasseh the
son of Hezekiah returned and was accepted by the Lord — and the chief
of the apostles, St. Peter, who had denied for a time (8) and has [still]
became our truly solid rock which supports the Lord’s faith, and on which
the church is in every way founded. (9) This is, first of all, because he

31 Sir 12:24.

CATHARI

111

confessed that “Christ” is “the Son of the living God,” 32 and was told, “On
this rock of sure faith will I build my church” 33 — for he plainly confessed
that Christ is true Son. For by saying, “Son of the living God,” with the
additional phrase, “the living,” he showed that Christ is God’s true Son, as
I have said in nearly every Sect.

8.1 Peter also assures us of the ffoly Spirit by saying to Ananias, “Why
hath Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Ghost? Ye have not lied unto
man, but unto God,” 34 for the Spirit is of God and not different from God.

(2) And Peter also became the solid rock of the building and foundation
of God’s house, because, after denying, turning again, and being found by
the Lord, he was privileged to hear, “Feed my lambs and feed my sheep.” 35

(3) For with these words Christ led us to the turning of repentance, so
that our well founded faith might be rebuilt in him — a faith that forbids
the salvation of no one alive who truly repents, and amends his faults in
this world.

9.1 Thus the bride herself said to the bridegroom in the Song of Songs,
“My sister’s son answereth and saith unto me, Arise and come, beloved,
my fair one, my dove, for the storm is past” — the horrid darkness of the
overcast sky is past, and the great frightfulness < of the storms* >, as it
were, < of our sins* > — (2) “and the rain is over and gone. The flowers
appear in our land, the time of pruning has come, the voice of the turtle-
dove is heard in our land. The hg tree putteth forth her fruits. Our vines
blossom, they have yielded their fragrance.” 36 (3) She means that all the
past is behind us. Spring is now in bloom, the sea is calm and the fear of
rain is past. The old < shoots* > of the vine have been cut off, the grass
is no longer merely green but in flower as well, (4) and the voice of the
Gospel has cried out “in the wilderness” 37 — that is, “in our land.” The hg
tree, which once was cursed, has borne “hgs” — the fruits of repentance,
now visible in its twigs and branches — and “vines,” 38 now in bloom with
the fragrant message of the faith of the Gospel.

g,5 For Christ has even now called his bride and said, “Arise and come!” 39
“Arise,” < that is >, from the death of sins, “and come” in righteousness.

32 Matt 16:16.

33 Cf. Matt 16:18.

34 Acts 5:3-4.

35 John 21:16; 17.

36 Cant 2:10; 13.

37 Mark 1:3.

38 dt| 27 tsXoui;. Because the vines twine on the fig trees planted in the vineyards?

39 Cant 2:10; 13.

112

CATHARI

“Arise” from transgression “and come” with confidence. “Arise” from sins
“and come” with repentance. “Arise” from palsy “and come” whole; “arise”
from maiming “and come” sound; “arise” from unbelief “and come” in
faith. “Arise” from the lost “and come” with the found.

9,6 But since the sacred oracle knew that men can fall into many trans-
gressions after their first repentance, first call and, as it were, first healing,
the bridegroom, again, says, “Arise and come, my beloved, my fair one,
my dove, and come, thou my dove!” 40 (7) He calls her this second time
and not simply once. But the second time is not like the first, for in the
previous call he says, “Arise and come, beloved, my fair one, my dove.”
The first time it is, “Arise and come,” and not, “Come thou." (8) And the
second time he adds the article 41 to show that his call is not a second
call, changed after the first, but the same divine right hand of lovingkind-
ness [that was offered] in the first, extended once more after [there have
been] transgressions.

g,9 “And come, < thou > my dove,” he says, “in the shelter of the rock,
nigh unto the outworks.” 42 “In the shelter of a rock” — < that is >, in Christ’s
lovingkindness and the Lord’s mercy, for this is the shelter of the rock,
the shelter of hope, faith and truth. (10) [And] “nigh unto the outworks”
means before the closing of the gate — before the king has gone inside
the walls and admits no one further. In other words, after our departure
and death, when there is no more “nigh unto the outworks,” the gates are
closed, and amendment is no more.

10,1 For in the world to come, after a man’s departure, there is no
opportunity to fast, no call to repentance, no giving of alms. There are no
blameworthy deeds either — no war, adultery, licentiousness — but neither
is there righteousness and repentance. (2) As the seed cannot thicken or
be blasted by the wind after the reaping of the ear, so < after a man’s
death there can be no increase of his store* > and nothing else of benefit
to him. (3) But don’t tell me about the things that spoil the store, that is,
the worms and moths. Scripture does say this of things in eternity; but the
point of comparison, and what we lock away behind gates and store safely
in a barn, is a symbol and type of faith, [which is kept] “where neither
thieves break through nor moths corrupt,” 43 as God’s word says.

40 Cant 2:13-14.

41 I.e., the article specifies this call as the call issued to the same person who has already
been called.

42 Cant 2:14.

43 Matt 6:20.

CATHARI

113

Thus < there is no decrease of our store* > after death, but neither, cer-
tainly, is there opportunity for godliness, nor, as I said, < call > to repen-
tance. (4) For Lazarus does not go to the rich man in the next world, nor
does the rich man go to Lazarus. Nor does Abraham inconvenience the
poor man who has since become rich, and send him [to the rich man]. And
the rich man who has become poor does not obtain his request, though he
begs and pleads with the merciful Abraham. (5) The storehouses had been
sealed, the time was up, the contest finished, the ring emptied, the prizes
awarded, and the contestants at ease. Those who have failed have left,
those who did not fight have no more chance, those who were worsted in
the ring have been ejected. All is plainly over after our departure.

10,6 But while all are in the world there is arising even after a fall, there
is still hope, still a remedy, still confession — even if not for everyone, still
< by those who are repenting for the second time* >. And surely < even >
the salvation of the others is not ruled out.

11.1 Now every sect which has drifted away from the truth in the dark is
blind and shortsighted, thinking of one idea after another. For these peo-
ple are like simpletons who do not understand the character, purpose and
proper dress of any member of the body. (2) In a way — (what I propose to
say is ridiculous, < but > it bears a resemblance to their stupidity) — they
put their shoes on their heads but their wreaths on their feet, and golden
collars round their tummies. And they wind what we might call our other
footgear, which we have because we wear himatia and which some call
drawers or pants, around their hands, but put rings on their feet.

11,3 The regulation of these ignorant people is just as mistaken and
clumsy. They have assumed that the prohibitions of second marriages and
the rest, which are reserved for the priesthood, < are enjoined* > upon all
the laity; and they have attributed the particularly stringent injunctions,
which God has made to keep certain persons from straying through laxity,
to cruelty on God’s part. (4) It is as though one were to tear a sleeve off an
himation and cover himself only to the elbow or to what is called the wrist,
but always hold the sleeve in front of his eyes and jeer at the rest, without
noticing that his whole body was bare. (5) So these people pride them-
selves on not receiving the twice-married, but < make light of > all the com-
mandments that are like this and much finer in the keeping, but deadly if
not kept. They < needlessly* > forbid the one [sin], but have ignored the
others. (6) Forgetting that their whole bodies are bare, they have ceased to
obey all the ordinances, and disingenuously retained the one.

12.1 How much nonsense people can think of! Every pretext, however
trivial it was, has drawn each sect away from the truth and impelled it

114

CATHARI

to a prolific production of evils. (2) ft is < as though > one found a break
in a wall beside a highway, thought of going through it, left the road and
turned off < there >, in the belief that a place where he could turn and pick
the road up again was right close by. But he did not know that the wall
was very high and ran on for a long way; (3) he kept running into it and
not finding a place to get out, and in fact went for more than a signpost,
or mile, further without reaching the road. And so he would turn and
keep going, tiring himself out and finding no way to get back to his route;
and perhaps he could never find one unless he went back through the
place where he had come in. (4) So every sect, as though it meant to find
a shortcut, has come to grief because of the length of the journey, and its
entanglement with ignorance and stupidity has become an unbreachable
barrier for it. (5) And no such sect can reach the true road unless each
one turns back to the original of the road, that is, to the king’s highway.
(6) The Law declared this in so many words, when the holy man, Moses,
said to the king of Edom, “Thus saith thy brother Israel. I shall pass by thy
borders to the land which the Lord hath sworn to our fathers to give us,
a land flowing with milk and honey, the land of the Amorites, the Per-
izites, the Girgashites, the Jebusites, the Hivites, the Canaanites and the
Hittites. (7) We shall not swerve to the right hand or to the left, we shall
drink water for money and eat food for money. We shall not swerve this
way or that, we shall go by the king’s highway.” 44 (8) For there is a king’s
highway, and this is the church of God and the journey of the truth. But
each of these sects which has abandoned the king’s highway, turned to the
right or to the left, and ended by getting more lost, will be drawn out of its
way, and will never reach the end of the wrong road of its error.

13,1 Now then, servants of God and sons of God’s holy church, you who
know the sure standard and are on the path of the truth! Let’s not be
drawn in the wrong direction by voices, and led away by the voice of every
false practice. (2) For their roads are perilous, and the path of their false
notion runs uphill. They talk big, and don’t know even the little things;
they promise freedom, but are the slaves of sin themselves. They boast of
the greater things, and have not even attained to the lesser.

13,3 But I think that this will be enough about these so-called “Pure”
people — who, if the truth must be told, are impure people. (4) Let us toss
this sect aside like the face of a basilisk — which, from the sound of the
name, has a very grand title, (j 3 aa(Xiaxoq) but which it is death to meet.
But let us, striking it with the power of the wood of the cross, set out

44 Cf. Nu 20:14; 17; 19; Deut 7:1.

ANGELICS

115

once more for the rest, (5) offering God the same supplication that he will
travel with us, abide with us, be with us, assist us, preserve us, chasten us,
and make us worthy to speak the truth, so that we may not tell any false-
hoods ourselves and thus fall into the same state as the sects, which have
taught the world nothing true.

13,6 And further, the people in Africa and Byzicania who are named
Donatists for one Donatus, have ideas similar to these and are rebels
themselves because, if you please, they will not communicate with those
who have lapsed in the persecution. They will be refuted by the same
arguments as the Navatians, or so-called Purists, who are unequally yoked
with them. (7) I therefore do not need to discuss them any further, but
have put them together with those who are like them. (8) However, these
latter have fallen again in a more serious way. They believe in the Arian
version of the faith and, as Arius was refuted, they likewise will be refuted
by words of truth about the faith which they hold incorrectly; for Arius
agrees with them and they with him. (g) And once more, we shall pass
this sect by as though we had trampled on horrid serpents in the Lord,
and go on to the rest.

Against AngeLlcs. 40, but 60 of the series

1,1 I have heard that < there is* > a sect of Angelics and have been told
nothing but their name. But I am not sure which sect this is, perhaps
because it arose at some time, but later dwindled away and was altogether
brought to an end.

1,2 But why it got its name I don’t know. It may have been because of
some people’s saying that the world was made by angels — even if it was
given this name for saying that, I can’t say [so for certain.] Or it may have
been because they boasted of having the rank of angels and leading par-
ticularly exemplary lives — I cannot make this affirmation either. Or they
might even have been named for some place; there is a country called
Angelina beyond Mesopotamia.

2,1 But if you are reminded of something now, reader, you will har-
bor no suspicion to my discredit. I promised to report the roots and the
nourishment of some sects, or some of the things they do, but to mention
only the name of others 1 ; (2) but as the divine power has equipped and

1 See Proem II 2,4. But there Epiphanius does not speak of mentioning some sects
only by name.

APOSTOLICS

aided me, until this sect I have gone right through them all and left none
unexplained, except this one. (3) But perhaps it is because it was puffed
up with pride for a short while and later came to an end, that I have no
understanding of it.

2,4 But I shall name it with the mere quick mention of its name as
though as that of an untimely birth, pass its place [in the series] by, and
embark on the investigation of the others. (5) I likewise entreat the Lord
of all to disclose himself to me, show my small mind what the sects do,
and give it all the exact facts, (6) enabling me to correct myself and my
neighbors so that we may avoid what is evil, but gain a firm foundation,
in God, in what is good, and absolutely true.

Against Apostolics. 41} but 61 of the series

1,1 Others after these have termed themselves Apostolics. They also like
to call themselves Apotactics, since they practice the renunciation of pos-
sessions. (2) They too are an offshoot of the doctrines of Tatian, the Encra-
tites, the Tatianists and the Purists, and they do not accept marriage at all.
Their mysteries also have been altered. 1 2

1,3 They boast of supposedly owning nothing, but they divide and harm
God’s holy church to no purpose and have been deprived of God’s loving-
kindness by their self-chosen regulations. (4) For they allow no readmis-
sion if one of them has lapsed, and as to matrimony and the rest, they
agree with the sects we mentioned above. (5) And the Purists use only the
canonical scriptures, but these people rely mostly on the so-called Acts
of Andrew and Thomas, and have nothing to do with the ecclesiastical
canon.

1,6 [But they are wrong]; for if marriage is abominable, all < who > are
born of marriage are unclean. And if God’s holy church is composed only
of those who have renounced marriage, (7) marriage cannot be of God.
And if it is not, the whole business of procreation is ungodly. And if the

1 Though several authors speak of Apotactics, only Epiphanius uses the term, Apos-
tolics 2,1 suggests that he has one particular group, in a specific geographical area, in mind.
Other authors tend to give such rigorist groups several related titles: “Encratites, Apotac-
tics and Eremites” (Mac. Mag. 3.43); “Cathari, Encratites, Hydroparastatae and Apotactics”
(Bas. Caes. Ep. 199, Canon 7); “Encratites, Saccophori and Apotactics” (Code of Theodosius
16.5.7) et al. Below at 1,2 Epiphanius says, “Encratites, Tatianists and Cathari”; at 7,1, “Apos-
tolics, Apotactics and Encratites.”

2 This presumably means that they celebrated the eucharist with water instead of
wine.

APOSTOLICS

117

business of procreation is ungodly so are they, since they have been begot-
ten by such behavior.

1,8 But what becomes of scripture’s, “What God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder?” 3 < To satisfy > the necessities < of nature > 4
is human, but voluntary continence displays, not the work of man but the
work of God. (9) And the necessity of nature [indeed] is often blamewor-
thy because the necessity is not satisfied in a praiseworthy manner, but
has overstepped the rule. For godliness is not a necessity; righteousness
is by choice.

1,10 The things which by their nature must necessarily < contribute* >
to godliness are obvious, and these are over and above nature. For exam-
ple, not committing fornication, not committing adultery, not being licen-
tious, not having two spouses at once, not plundering, not being unjust,
not getting drunk, not being gluttonous, not worshiping idols, not commit-
ting murder, not practicing sorcery, not cursing, not reviling, not swear-
ing, being annoyed and quickly appeased, not sinning when angered, not
letting the sun go down on one’s wrath. (11) But that lawful wedlock < is
godly* >, nature, which God has created and permitted, will show; and the
other things of this sort have each their measure of permission.

2.1 But as 1 have previously said of them, they live in a small area,
around Phrygia, Cilicia and Pamphylia. (2) Now what does this mean?
Has the church, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other,
been exterminated? Will “Their sound is gone out unto all lands, and their
words unto the ends of the world,” 5 no longer hold? Or is the Savior’s “Ye
shall be witnesses unto me unto the uttermost part of the earth” 6 no lon-
ger in force? (3) If marriage is not respectable, godly and worthy of eternal
life, they < themselves* > should be born without marriage. But if they are
born of marriage, they are unclean because of marriage. (4) If, however,
they alone are not unclean even though they are the products of marriage,
then marriage is not unclean — for no one will ever be born without it.
(5) And there is a great deal of human error which harms humanity in
various ways and for many reasons, and which, by pretense, leads every-
one astray from the truth.

3.1 The church too believes in renunciation, but it does not consider
marriage unclean, ft also believes in voluntary poverty, but it does not

3 Matt 19:6.

4 Holl to . . . EjTotvdyxEs crijs (pucewc; emTsketvs, MSS to . . . EjtavdyicE? x co P'? Elv -

5 Ps 18:5.

6 Acts 1:8.

APOSTOLICS

look down on those who are in righteous possession of property, and
have inherited enough from their parents to suffice for themselves and
the needy. (2) Many [Christians] have enough to eat, but they are not
contemptuous of those who do not. “Let not him that eateth despise him
that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.
For to the Lord he eateth and drinketh, and to the Lord he eateth and
drinketh not.” 7 (3) And you see that there is one harmony, one hope in
the church and one faith, granted each in accordance with his ability and
his own laborious struggle.

3,4 God’s holy church is like a ship. However, a ship is not made of
one kind of wood, but of different kinds. Its keel is made of one kind
of wood, though not all in one piece, and its anchors < of > another. Its
beams, planks and ribs, its frame-timbers, the stern, sides and cross-rods,
the mast and the steering paddles, the seats and the oar-handles, the til-
lers and all the rest, are an assemblage of different kinds of wood. (5) But
since each is made of only one kind of wood, none of these sects exhibits
the character of the church.

God’s holy church holds marriage sacred and honors married persons,
for “Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled.” 8 (6) < But > it regards
continence as the most admirable, and commends it because it is engaged
in the contest and has despised the world, as being still more powerful
[than the world]. And the church believes in virginity and accords it the
highest honor, because it is a thing of virtue and is fitted with the lightest
wing. (7) The church has members who have renounced the world and yet
are not contemptuous of those who are still in the world; they rejoice in
the very great piety of such persons, as did the apostles who owned noth-
ing themselves, < and yet did not look down on the others* >. (8) And the
Savior himself owned no earthly possessions when he came in the flesh,
though he was Lord of all — and yet he did not reject the women who
assisted his disciples and himself. The Gospel says, “women which fol-
lowed him from Galilee, ministering unto him of their substance.” 9

4,1 [If no one may own property], what is the point of “Hither to my
right hand, ye blessed, for whom my heavenly Father hath prepared the
kingdom before the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered,
and ye gave me meat; thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was naked, and ye

7 Rom 14:3.

8 Heb 13:4.

9 Luke 8:3.

APOSTOLICS

119

clothed me?” 10 (2) How could they do these things except with [the fruits
of] their honest labor, and their righteously acquired possessions?

4,3 And if these people < who > have made their own renunciation and
live like the apostles would mix with the rest [of us], their ways would not
seem strange, or foreign to God’s ordinance. (4) And if they renounced
wives for the sake of continence their choice would be praiseworthy,
provided that they did not call marriage unclean, and provided that they
treated the < still > married as comrades, knowing the limitation and the
rank of each.

4,5 For God’s ship takes any passenger except a bandit. If it finds that
someone is a robber and bandit it does not take him on board — or one
who is a fugitive and in rebellion against his owners. (6) Thus God’s holy
church does not accept fornication, adultery, the denial of God, and those
who defy the authority of God’s ordinance and his apostles. (7) But it takes
the man on important business, the experienced seaman — the pilot and
< helmsman* >, the bow lookout, the man in the stern (the one most used
to command), the one who knows something of cargo and lading — and
someone who simply wants to cross the ocean without drowning. (8) And
there is no question of the ship’s not providing safety for someone who
does not have a particular amount of property; it knows how to save all,
and each in his own profession. Why are the members of Caesar’s house-
hold greeted in the Epistles? (g) Why the apostle’s “If any man think that
he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, and need so require, let
her marry; she sinneth not.” * 11

4,10 But “sinneth not” cannot apply to him without baptism. For if “All
have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by
his grace,” 12 this is plainly through the laver of regeneration. For bap-
tism has adorned the soul and the body, washing every sin away through
repentance. (11) Thus the gift of baptism both enfolds the virgin and,
because of her sinfulness, hastens to seal the non-virgin.

5,1 But though I have said that the apostle directed the virgin to marry,
no one need get the silly notion that he gave this direction to dissuade
the woman from her course once she had vowed virginity to God. (2) He
did not mean these women, but marriageable women who had remained

10 Matt 25:24-35.

11 1 Cor 7:36.

12 Rom 3:23-24.

120

APOSTOLICS

virgins in their prime, not for virginity’s sake but because they of their
inability to find husbands.

5,3 The apostles, who were Jewish and had begun their preaching after
lives lived by the Law, were still bound by the provisions of the Law, not
for any fleshly justification but out of regard for the Law’s fitting sure-
ness and strictness. (4) The Law admirably forbade the Israelites to give
their daughters to gentiles, who might seduce them into idolatry. Thus a
believer at that time was ordered not to give his virgin daughters to Jews
any longer, but to Christians, whose beliefs and opinions were the same
as theirs.

5,5 But as the Gospel was new there was not yet a large number of
Christians in every place, and not a great deal of Christian teaching. Hence
the fathers of virgin daughters would keep their virgins at home for a long
time if they could not give them to Christians, and when they were past
their prime they would fall into fornication from the necessity of nature.
(6) So, because the apostle saw the harm that resulted from this strict-
ness, he permitted [marriage to Jews], and said, “he who would < give >
his virgin in marriage” 13 — and he did not say, “his own virgin,” for he was
not speaking of the man’s own body, (7) but of the father guarding a virgin
[daughter]. But even if “his virgin” means his own body, there is nothing
to prevent [the man from giving his daughter]. (8) Thus he says, “< He >
that standeth steadfast in his intention and ought so to do, let her marry!
She sinneth not” 14 “Let her marry anyone she can; she is not sinning.”
(g) And this is why < he says >, "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to
be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.” 15 The apostle
who says, “I would that all men be even as I,” 16 also < said >, "If they cannot
contain, let them many.” 17

6,1 And again, when he was urging the < un>married [to remain so],
he said, “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them
if they abide even as I.” 18 (2) But then how could he go on to say, “Art thou
bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed?” 19 Why will he not be guilty of

13 Cf. 1 Cor 7:36.

14 Cf. 1 Cor 7:37; 36.

15 1 Cor 7:27.

16 1 Cor 7:7.

17 1 Cor 7:9.

18 1 Cor 7:8.

19 1 Cor 7:27.

APOSTOLICS

121

contradicting his Lord, who said, “Whoso forsaketh not father and mother
and brethren, and wife and sons and daughters, is not my disciple?” 20

6.3 But if Christ means that one must forsake his lawful wife, and
his father, how can he himself say in turn, “He that honoreth father or
mother, this is the first commandment with a promise attached” 21 and,
“What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder?” 22

6.4 However, none of the sacred words need an allegorical interpre-
tation of their meaning; they need examination, and the perception to
understand the force of each proposition. (5) But tradition must be used
too, for not everything is available from the sacred scripture. Thus the holy
apostles handed some things down in scriptures but some in traditions,
as St. Paul says, “As I delivered the tradition to you,” 23 and elsewhere,
“So I teach, and so I have delivered the tradition in the churches,” 24 and,
“If ye keep the tradition in memory, unless ye have believed in vain.” 25
(6) God’s holy apostles, then, gave God’s holy church the tradition that it
is sinful to change one’s mind and marry after vowing virginity. And yet
the apostle wrote, “If the virgin marry she hath not sinned.” 26 (7) 27 How
can the one agree with the other? By that virgin he does not mean the
one who had made a vow to God, but < the one on whom* > virginity has
been forced by the scarcity, at that particular time, of men who believe
in Christ.

6,8 And that this is the case the same apostle will teach us by say-
ing, “Younger widows refuse. For when they have begun to wax wanton
against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have
cast off their first faith.” 28 (g) If even a woman who has been widowed
after knowing the world will be condemned for abandoning her first faith
because she has vowed to God and then married, how much more will a
virgin, if she marries after devoting herself to God without having known
the world? (ro) < For > why has she, indeed, not waxed far more wanton
against Christ, and abandoned the greater faith? Why will she not be con-
demned for relaxing her own godly resolution?

20 Cf. Luke 14:26.

21 Eph 6:2.

22 Matt 19:6.

23 Matt 19:6.

24 Cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 7:17.

25 1 Cor 15:2.

26 Cf. 1 Cor 7:36.

27 We supply a paragraph number missing from Holl.

28 1 Tim 5:11-12.

122

APOSTOLICS

7.1 “Let them marry, bear children, guide the house” 29 is a concise
and temperate retort to those who think evil of every disposition in the
church’s tradition. (2) It is the repudiation of those who call themselves
Apostolics, Apotactics and Encratites; also of the soft-headed churchmen
who persuade women to shirk the running of a full course, refusing to fin-
ish the race because of its length. (3) And whoever repudiates virginity for
God’s sake and dishonors the contest, is a sinner and liable to judgment. If
an athlete cheats in a game he is flogged and put out of the contest; and
anyone who cheats on virginity is ejected from a race, crown and prize of
such importance.

7,4 But judgment, not condemnation, is the better alternative. Those
who do not commit their fornication < openly > for fear of being shamed
before men, < but > do it in secret, < have a further sin because* > they
do this < under the pretense > of virginity, monogamy or continence.
(5) < For > they do not have to confess to men — but they do to God, who
knows secrets and at his coming convicts all flesh of its sins. (6) It is bet-
ter, then, to have the one sin and not further sins. If one drops out of the
race it is better to take a lawful wife openly, and in place of virginity do
penance for a long time, and be readmitted to the church as one who has
strayed and wept, and is in need of reinstatement — and not be wounded
every day by the secret darts of wickedness which the devil launches
at him.

8.1 This is what the church knows how to preach. These are her heal-
ing medicines. These are the kinds of unguents she prepares. This is the
compounding of the holy oil in the Law. This is the fine faith with its
sweet fragrance which steels the athlete for the contest, reminding him
that, to be crowned, he must stay the course. (2) And this is the work of
God, gathering all things for royal disposition: purple from the sea, wool
from the flock, linen from the earth and flax and silk, skins dyed scarlet
and precious stones, emeralds, pearls, agates — stones of different colors
but of equal value. (3) Gathering gold, silver, petrified wood, bronze and
iron, moreover, and not disdaining goat skins. (4) And this was the taber-
nacle of those days; but now, in place of the tabernacle, there is the house
made firm in God, founded on the power < of the truth* >. And every sect
should stop attacking the truth, or rather, stop driving itself away from
the truth.

29 1 Tim 5:14.

SABELLLANS

123

8,5 And let this be enough. I have struck this haughty viper with the
wood of the cross and left it dead, like the quick-darting snake, as they call
it, or the blind-snake or rnouser. These snakes do not have as much venom,
but they may well be compared with the Apostolics as nuisances because
of their movement, pride and stroke. Let us disdain them, beloved, and
go on to the rest.

Against Sabellians. 1 42, but 62 of the series

1,1 Sabellius did not arise very long ago in ancient times, for his date is
recent. The so-called Sabellians are derived from him. (2) He < taught >
very similarly to the Noetians, except for a few further doctrines of his
own. (3) Many in Mesopotamia 2 and Rome are of his persuasion, due
to some stupidity of theirs.

1,4 For he, and the Sabellians who derive from him, hold that the
Father is the same, the Son is the same, and the Holy Spirit is the same, so
that there are three names in one entity. 3 (5) 4 Or, as there are a body,
a soul and a spirit in a man, so the Father, in a way, is the body; the Son,
in a way, is the soul; and as a man’s spirit is in man, so is the Holy Spirit
in the Godhead. (6) Or it is as in the sun, which consists of one entity but
has three operations, I mean the illumining, the warming, and the actual
shape of the orb. (7) The warming, or hot and seething operation is the
Spirit; the illumining operation is the Son; and the Father is the actual
form of the whole entity. 5 (8) And the Son was once sent forth like a ray,
accomplished the entire dispensation of the Gospel and men’s salvation
in the world, and was taken up to heaven again, as though a ray had been
sent by the sun and had returned to the sun. (g) But the Holy Spirit is sent
into the world both once and for all, and in the individual case of each
person so privileged. He quickens this person and makes him fervent, and,

1 The source of this is plainly literary, see the time reference in 1,1 and the style of what
follows. A possibility is some lost work of Dionysius of Alexandria, see Eus. H. E. 6.6. Sabel-
lius is attacked at Hippol. Haer. 9.3.11-13.5.4.

2 The Mesopotamian archbishop Archelaus mentions Sabellius as a heretic, Act.
Arch. 41.

3 The same phraseology is attributed to Sabellius by Dionysius of Alexandria apud
Athanasius, De Sententiis Dionysii (Routh III p. 375).

4 We supply a paragraph number not found in Holl.

5 Roughly the same comparison is made at Justin Dial. 128.5; Tert. Adv. Prax. 10.4.

124

SABELLIANS

as it were, warms and heats him by the power of the Spirit and his com-
munion with him. 6 And these are their doctrines.

2.1 They use all the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, but
[especially] certain texts which they select themselves in keeping with
the idiocy and stupidity of their own which they have introduced.
(2) First, God’s words to Moses, "ffear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord
is one.” 7 “Thou shalt not make to thyself other gods.” 8 “There shall not
be unto thee new gods,” 9 for “I am God, the first and the last, and beside
me there is no other.” 10 (3) And whatever of this sort < they find, < they
alter* > to suit themselves, and advance it as proof of these doctrines.
Again, [they use] the saying from the Gospel, “I am in the Father and the
Father in me, and we two are one.” * 11

2,4 But they have taken all of their error, and the sense of their error,
from certain apocryphal works, especially the so-called Egyptian Gospel,
as some have named it. 12 (5) There are many such passages in it, purport-
ing to be delivered privately in the person of the Savior as mysteries, as
though he is telling his disciples that the Father is the same, the Son is
same, and the Holy Spirit is the same. 13

2,6 Then, when they encounter simple or innocent persons who do
not understand the sacred scriptures clearly, they give them this first
fright: “What are we to say, gentlemen? Have we one God or three gods?”
(7) But when someone who is devout but does not fully understand the
truth hears this, he is disturbed and assents to their error at once, and
comes to deny the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3.1 Man’s ancient adversary has inspired all these sectarians in order
to deceive people — one in one way and one in another, but deceive most
of them and deflect them from the way of the truth. (2) That God is truly
one and there is no other, is plainly confessed in God’s holy church, and
it is agreed that we do not inculcate polytheism, but proclaim a single
sovereignty. (3) However, we do not err in proclaiming this sovereignty
but confess the Trinity — Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, and one

6 Cf. Athenagoras Leg. 10.

7 Deut 6:4.

8 Cf. Exod 20:3.

9 Ps 80:10.

10 Isa 44:6.

11 Cf. John 10:38; 30.

12 Hippolytus quotes a passage about souls from a “Gospel according to the Egyptians”
at Haer. 5.7.8-g.

13 Perhaps cf. NHC Gr. Seth 59,18, where Christ is made to say, “The Father, who is I.”

SABELLLANS

125

Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (4) For the Son did not beget him-
self, and the Father was not changed from his fatherhood < into being >
a Son. Nor did the Holy Spirit ever call himself Christ; he called himself
Spirit of Christ and given through Christ, proceeding from the Father and
receiving of the Son.

(5) The Father is an entity, the Son is an entity, the Holy Spirit is an
entity. But the Trinity is not an identity as Sabellius thought, nor has
it been altered from its own eternity and glory, as Arius foolishly held.
(6) The Trinity was always a Trinity, and the Trinity never receives an addi-
tion. It is one Godhead, one sovereignty and one glory, but is enumerated
as a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and not as one entity with three
names; the names are truly complete and the entities are complete.

3,7 But nothing has been changed. The Father is always a father and
there was no time when the Father was not a father. Because he is per-
fect, he is forever an actual Father. And the Son is forever perfect, forever
actual, truly begotten of the Father without beginning, not in time, and
ineffably. He is not brother to the Father. (8) He has had no beginning and
will never come to an end, but co-exists with the Father forever as his true
Son, begotten of the Father outside of time, the equal of the Father — God
of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made. But he is
not the Father himself, and the Father is not the Son himself; there is one
God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

4,1 For the Spirit is forever with the Father and the Son — not brother
to the Father, not begotten, not created, not the Son’s brother, not the
Father’s offspring. He proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son,
and is not different from the Father and the Son, (2) but is of the same
essence, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, with the Father
and the Son, forever an actual Holy Spirit — divine Spirit, Spirit of glory,
Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. For < scripture says >, "It is the Spirit
of the Father that speaketh in you,” 14 and, “My Spirit is in the midst of
you.” 15 He is third in name but equal in Godhead, not different from the
Father and the Son, bond of the Trinity, seal of the confession of it.

4,3 For the Son says, “I and the Father, < we two > are one.” 16 He did
not say, “I am one,” but with “I” and “the Father” indicates that the Father

14 Matt 10:20.

15 Hag 2:5.

16 Cf. John 10:30.

126

SABELLIANS

is an entity and the Son is an entity. And he said, “the two,” not “the one”;
and again, he said, “We are one,” not, “lam one.”

4.4 < He > likewise < says >, “Go baptize in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 17 But by inserting the conjunctions,
that is, the syllable “and” [between the names], he refutes Sabellius, with
his futile introduction of an identity. (5) For by < inserting > “and” he
shows that there is truly a Father, truly a Son, and truly a Holy Spirit — but
since the Trinity are of equal rank, and are called ‘Trinity” as one name,
he refutes Arius, with his notion of a subordination, difference or change
in the Trinity.

4,6 For even though the Father is declared to be greater than the
Son who glorifies him, the Father, with perfect propriety, preserves the
< equal > glory for the Son. For who else but the true Son should glorify
his < own > Father? (7) But when, again, he desires to state his equality
[with the Father], to prevent certain persons from going wrong by think-
ing less of the Son he says, “Whoso honoreth not the Son as he honoreth
the Father hath not life in himself,” 18 and, "All things that the Father
hath are mine.” 19 But what can “All things that the Father hath are mine”
mean but, “The Father is God; I am God. The Father is life; 1 am life. The
Father is eternal; 1 am eternal. All things that the Father hath are mine?”

5,1 See and understand, Sabellius! Open the eyes of your heart, and
cease from your blindness! Let your mind, and the minds of your dupes,
go with St. John to the Jordan. (2) Open your ears and hear the prophet’s
voice say, “1 am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” 20 Hear the
Lord’s fore-runner, privileged to be called “angel,” who received the Holy
Spirit in his mother’s womb and leaped when Mary entered Elizabeth’s
dwelling. (3) While still in the womb he knew his Master’s coming in and
leaped for joy. To him was given the preparatory announcement of the
Gospel, and the readying of the way of the Lord. Believe him, and you
cannot miss the mark of the truth.

5.4 See here, John himself testifies by saying first, on recognizing his
Lord, “1 have need of thee, and comest thou to me?” And when the Sav-
ior said, “Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled,” 21
(5) and was himself baptized by John, “John bare record,” as the divine

17 Matt 28:19.

18 Cf. John 5:23-24.

19 John 16:15.

20 John 1:23.

21 Matt 3:14.

SABELLLANS

127

Gospel says, and said, “The heavens were opened. And I saw the Holy
Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming upon him. And a
voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 22
(6) The Father was in heaven, you trouble-maker, the voice came from
heaven! If the voice came from above, expound your false notion to me!
To whom was the Father saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased?” And who was it?

5,7 And why did Spirit descend in the form of a dove, although he had
no body? For the Only-begotten alone assumed a body, and was made
perfect man of the ever-virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit, (8) not by a man’s
seed. The Word, the Master Builder, formed his own body from Mary,
took the human soul and mind and everything human, all in its perfec-
tion, and united it with his divinity. It was not as though he inhabited a
man, 23 nothing like that! He himself is the holy Word, the divine Word
incarnate.

6,1 But why does the Spirit appear in the form of a dove? Why but to
convince you not to blaspheme, you would-be sage without a correct idea
in your head, to keep you from thinking that the Spirit is identical with
the Father or the Son? (2) Although the Spirit himself has never had a
body, he is portrayed in the form of a dove to indicate and expose your
error. For the Spirit is an entity in himself, and the Father is an entity, and
the Only-begotten is an entity, but there is no division of the Godhead, or
subordination of its glory. (3) And you see how the Trinity is enumerated,
with the Father calling from on high, the Son baptized in the Jordan, and
the Holy Spirit arriving next in the form of a dove.

6,4 Tell me, who was it that said, “Behold, my beloved Son shall under-
stand, in whom I am well pleased, he whom my soul hath chosen. I shall
put my Spirit upon him, and he will declare judgment to the gentiles. He
will not strive nor cry, nor will his voice be heard in the streets. A bruised
reed shall he not break and smoking flax shall he not quench until he
bring forth judgment into victory,” 24 and so on? (5) Doesn’t this convey
the meaning of the Trinity, you trouble-maker? Or did the Father say all
this in the prophet about himself?

22 John 1:32; Matt 3:17.

23 For the idea of inhabiting a man cf. NHC VII, 2 Gr. Seth 51,21-24, “I visited a bodily
dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first, and I went in.”

24 Cf. Isa 42:1-4.

128

SABELLIANS

6,6 Who is it of whom scripture says, “The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand?” 25 And it didn’t say, “Enter into me.” (7) Or
again, why does the Gospel say, "And he ascended into heaven, and sat
down at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the quick
and the dead? 26 (8) Or again, why have the two men who appeared in
white garments not convinced you by saying to the disciples, “Ye men of
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have
seen him taken up?” 27 (g) And at whom was the blessed Stephen look-
ing when he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man
standing on the right hand of God?” 28 But you, you utter boor — you, on
the other hand, have done harm to yourself and your followers by not
understanding the voice of the holy scriptures and being deprived of the
holy faith in God’s truth.

7,1 Certainly he said, “I am the first and I am the last, and beside me
there is no other.” 29 (2) For of course there are not many gods! There
is one God, the first and the last, Father, Son and Holy Spirit — and the
Trinity is not an identification, and not separated from its own identity. It
is a Father who has truly begotten a Son; and a Son truly begotten of the
Father as an entity, without beginning and not in time; and a Holy Spirit
truly of the Father and the Son, of the same divinity, proceeding from the
Father and receiving of the Son, forever < an entity >, “one God, the first
and the last.” 30

7,3 But this oracle in its turn is given to serve a different purpose, and
in the person of Christ himself. Long ago in the time of the prophets our
Lord Jesus Christ often appeared and foretold his incarnation — though
some have not received him, but await someone else instead. (4) And
it is meant for those who have a superstitious regard for idols and have
brought polytheism to the world, to keep the children of Israel from being
struck with fear and turned to [the worship of] the idols of the Amorites,
Hittites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Arucaeans,
and Asanaeans, as they had been prophetically warned. (5) For they wor-
shiped Baal Peor, Chemosh, Astarte, the Mazzuroth, the Neastho, Baal
Zebub, and the rest of the idols of the heathen. And this is why the Lord

25 Ps 109:1.

26 Cf. Mark 16:19.

27 Acts i:n.

28 Acts 7:56.

29 Isa 44:6.

30 Isa 41:4; 44:6.

SABELLLANS

129

told them, “I am the first and the last” — to turn them away from the error
of the polytheist myth-makers.

7.6 And because they would spurn the advent of the Son himself, our
Lord Jesus Christ, he told the Jews, "I am the first and the last” — the One
who sojourned here first in the flesh, and will come at the last to judge the
quick and the dead. He suffered on the cross, was buried and arose, and
was taken up in glory in his body itself, but a body united in glory with
his Godhead, and made radiant — no longer tangible, no longer mortal, for
“Christ is risen,” 31 as the scripture says; “Death,” says the apostle, “hath
no more dominion over him.” 32

7.7 And see how [scripture’s] accuracy guides a person, to keep him
from error about either of the parts of the truth. Whenever his mind is
inclined to construct a pantheon, he hears, “The Lord is thy God, the Lord
is one.” (8) But when the children of Israel await a Christ other than the
Christ who has come, they hear, "I am the first and I am the last,” 33 and,
“I am alpha and omega” 34 — the alpha which looks down, and the omega
which looks up, in fulfillment of scripture’s, “He that descended is the
same also that ascended up far above all rule and authority and dominion,
and every name that is named.” 35

7,9 And < to show what the truth is* > when < someone > supposes
< that > < only the Father is the true God* > because he has said, “I am
the first and the last,” “I am alpha and omega,” “The Lord thy God is one
Lord,” 36 and “I am he who is,” 37 so that no one will deny the Son and
the Holy Spirit (10) he says, “My Father is greater than I,” 38 and, “that
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent.” 39 This is not [said] because the Son is not the true God, but to
reduce the name of the Trinity to a single oneness, and redirect men’s
thinking from many divinities to one Godhead.

8,1 But if the blunderer Arius gets the notion that only the one, that is,
only the Father, is called the “true” God, while the Son is God but not “true
God,” Christ refutes him in his turn, in another way. He says [of himself],

31 Luke 24:6.

32 Rom 6:9.

33 Isa 41:4; 44:6.

34 Rev 1:8.

35 Eph 4:10; 1:21.

36 Deut 6:4.

37 Exod 3:14.

38 John 14:28.

39 John 17:3.

130

SHAMEFUL ORIGENISTS

“I am the true light, that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world,” 40
but of the Father, “God is light." 41 (2) And he refrained from saying, “true
light,” so that we would realize the equality of the Father’s Godhead with
the Son’s and the Son’s with the Father’s because of "true God” and “true
light,” and not be < misled* > because of the Father’s being "light” and the
Son’s being “God” without the addition of “true” in those instances. (3)
There was no need to say “true” [in these two latter cases], since there
was no doubt about it. The one perfection of the same relationship — the
Father’s to the Son and the Son’s to the Father — was made plainly evident
from the words, “God” and “light.”

8.4 And that demolishes all the idiocy of your error. The Father is a
father, the Son is a son, and the Holy Spirit is a holy spirit. They are a
Trinity — one Godhead, one glory, one sovereignty, < one God >, to whom
be glory, honor and might, the Father in the Son, the Son with the Holy
Spirit in the Father, forever and ever. Amen.

8.5 And we have now shaken this sect off, and trampled it in its turn
by the power of the Holy Trinity, like a libys or molurus or elops, or one
of those snakes which look very alarming but can do no harm with their
bites. Let us once more go on to the rest, calling on him to come to the aid
of my poverty and mediocrity, < so that > I may have his help in < giving* >
a proper < account* > of each sect’s teachings and activities, < and* > com-
posing the refutations of them.

Against the first type of Origenists, * 1 who are shameful as well.

43, but 63 of the series

1,1 There are people called Origenists, but this kind of Origenist is not to
be found everywhere. I think, though, that the sect we are now discussing
< arose > next after these [others]. (2) They are named Origenists, but I am
not sure after whom. I do not know whether they < are derived > from the
Origen who is called Adamantius the Author, 2 or from some other Origen.
Still, I have learned of this name.

40 John 8:12; 1:9.

41 1 John 1:5.

1 Only Epiphanius mentions this group; his sources of information are plainly oral.

2 C7UVTC()£TV]!;.

SHAMEFUL ORIGENISTS

131

1.3 The heresy they profess might have been modeled on the heresy
of Epiphanes, whom I described earlier in the Gnostic Sects. 3 But these
people read various scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And they
reject marriage, although their sexual activity is incessant. Some have said
that the sect originated in the region of Rome and Africa.

1.4 They soil their bodies, minds and souls with unchastity. Some of
them masquerade as monastics, and their woman companions as female
monastics. And they are physically corrupted because they satisfy their
appetite but, to put it politely, by the act of Onan the son of Judah.
(5) For as Onan coupled with Tamar and satisfied his appetite but did not
complete the act by planting his seed for the God-given [purpose of] pro-
creation and did himself harm instead, thus, as < he > did the vile thing, so
these people have used their supposed < female monastics >, committing
this infamy.

1,6 For purity is not their concern, but a hypocritical purity in name.
Their concern is limited to ensuring that the woman the seeming
< ascetic* > has seduced does not get pregnant — either so as not to cause
child-bearing, or to escape detection, since they want to be honored for
their supposed celibacy. (7) In any case, this is what they do, but others
endeavor to get this same filthy satisfaction not with women but by other
means, and pollute themselves with their own hands. (8) They too imitate
the son of Judah, soil the ground with their forbidden practices and drops
of filthy fluid and rub their emissions into the earth with their feet, so that
their seed will not be snatched by unclean spirits for the impregnation of
demons.

2,1 But as I said, they use various scriptures of the Old and the New Tes-
taments and certain apocrypha, especially the so-called Acts of Andrew
and the others. Indeed, they themselves have often freely boasted of doing
this thing. (2) Yet they accuse the members of the church, if you please,
who have beloved “adoptive wives,” as they call them, of doing this too —
but secretly from respect for public opinion, so as to engage in the wicked-
ness < in fact* >, but in pretense preen themselves on the name [“virgin”]
from regard for the public.

2,3 But some have told me of certain persons, now dead, who suppos-
edly also did this, having allegedly heard the information from women
these people had forced into it. (4) Among them they used to mention a

3 Pan. 32,3,1-5,1.

132

SHAMEFUL ORIGENISTS

bishop who had exercised the episcopate for a number of years in a small
town in Palestine and had had women of this sort, I mean adoptive wives,
to wait on him. Indeed, I have learned even from confessors that he was
that sort of person. (5) All the same, I do not believe the persons who
have said this and claim to have heard it from the women. For the strong
evidence of the speakers’ malice led me sometimes to believe, but at other
times to disbelieve their evil report of the aged bishop after his death.
(6) For the charge against him was something like this: “So-and-so was
caught in sin with a woman, and his defense when we confronted him was
that his partner in pollution had told him about the vicious practice” —
although she was already along in years and in her old age! — “and taught
him to use her but scatter his dirty fluids outside, on the ground.”

3,1 And this is their filthy act, which deceives their own minds and is
blinded by the devil. (2) I see no need for me to cite the texts which have
been their downfall. 4 Otherwise I might seem to be using the texts which
I mean as criticisms, to discourage the evil practices of each sect, as an
incentive to those whose minds are always unstable and vain, and who
pursue evil for themselves rather than desiring good. (3) Rather than this
I shall offer a few sample arguments as protection against this frightful,
snake-like sect.

3,4 Where have you gotten the idea of your vile act, you people? For to
begin with, who cannot see that your teaching is entirely the teaching of
demons, and the mischief you have contrived is the behavior of deluded,
corrupt persons? (5) If conception is in any way evil, this is not because
of childbearing but because of carnal relations. Why, then, do you give in
to lust and have carnal relations?

3,6 And if carnal relations are not evil, neither is it evil for the one who
has them to consummate what he has done. Or < must > an ascetic not
cultivate the fruits of the soil, as “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain
was a tiller of the ground?” 5 (7) But if one tills the ground, like Noah who
“became an husbandman and planted a vineyard” 6 — Noah did not plant
a vineyard in order for it not to yield vintage. He planted it and “drank of
the fruit thereof and was drunken,” 7 as scripture says.

3,8 But the aged man is excus< able >; he was pleasing to God, and did
not fall to drink from intemperance. Perhaps he was overcome with grief

4 Contrast Pan. 26,8,4-9,2.

5 Gen 4:2.

6 Gen 9:20.

7 Gen 9:21.

SHAMEFUL ORIGENISTS

133

and fell into a stupor, and succumbed to weakness from infirmity and old
age because he could not bear them; [in any case] it was not to be mocked
by his son. (g) But the son who mocked him received his curse, for the
punishment of those who offer insult to their parents, and of thoughts
in us that rebel against the knowledge of God and the ordinance he has
rightly decreed.

4,1 For even though marriage is not as highly honored as virginity and
virginity is superior to it — for true virginity is called glorious and virtu-
ous, not unclean — marriage is respectable too, < if one > employs 8 God’s
good creatures for procreation, not shame, and does not misuse God’s
appointed method of conjugal intercourse. (2) For in fact, virginity is the
state the apostle commends because he says, “The virgin, and the unmar-
ried woman, careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please the
Lord, that she may be holy in body and soul” 9 — showing that even though
the unmarried state is open to suspicion, it is no cause of faults.

4,3 Indeed, < propriety must be preserved in marriage* >. We know
that Abraham sired children although he was dear to the Lord, and Isaac,
Jacob and the rest. And they did not sully themselves with vile acts by
touching filth and < slime* >, or oppose God’s good ordinance of pro-
creation through lawful wedlock. (4) Nor did those of them who prac-
ticed chastity and virginity debase the contest and make something else
of it, as though to evade by trickery the virtuous mode of competing.
(5) Elijah too never lightly entered towns or associated with women, but
lived in deserts. Elisha, John, and all who < exhibited > this great mark
of the imitation of the angels, made themselves eunuchs in the right way
for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, in accordance with the Lord’s ordinance
in the Gospel.

4,6 And although I have a great deal to say about them, and could
expose the devil’s mockery of their minds with many proofs from scrip-
ture, I rest content with these few. (7) For anyone can see that their
behavior is not sensible, and that such knowledge is not from God; their
ridiculous activity, and their fall into the practice of iniquity, are diaboli-
cally inspired.

4,8 And now that we have maimed this sect too — like the horrid snake
we call the viper, which has a short body but breathes a breath which is
fearful for its venom, and blows destruction at those who come near it —

8 Holl: (teSoSeuei; MSS: omayopEUEi.

9 1 Cor 7:34.

134

ORIGEN

let us go on to the rest since we have crushed it, calling on God to help us
keep the promise of our whole work in God.

Against Origen 1 also called Adamantlus. 44, but 64 of the series

1,1 Origen, also surnamed Adamantius, 2 comes next after these. He was
the son of the holy and blessed martyr 3 Leonidas, 4 and in his youth
suffered a very great deal of persecution himself. 5 He was well schooled
in the Greek education 6 and brought up in the church, and became
known at Alexandria in the Emperor Decius’ time. (2) He was a native
Egyptian, but lived and was brought up in Alexandria, and perhaps also
went to the schools at Athens 7 at some time.

1,3 It is said that he suffered a great deal for the holy word of the faith
and the name of Christ, and indeed was often dragged around the city,
insulted, and subjected to excruciating tortures. 8 (4) Once, as the story
goes, the pagans shaved his head, set him on the steps of the temple of
their idol which they call the Serapeum, and ordered him to hand out
palm branches to those who went up the stairs for the vile act of worship-
ing the idol. (The priests of their idols take this posture.) (5) Taking the
branches he cried out without fear or hesitation, with loud voice and a
bold mind, "Come get Christ’s branch, not the idol’s!” And there are many
accounts of his brave deeds which the ancients hand down to us.

2,1 But his deeds did not remain worthy of the prize till the end. He
had been an object of extreme envy for his superior learning and educa-
tion, and this further provoked the authorities of his day. (2) With dia-
bolical malice the workers of iniquity thought of mistreating him sexually
and making that his punishment, and they secured a black to abuse his
body. (3) But Origen could not bear even the thought of this devil’s work,

1 Eus. H. E. 6,1-39 contains an admiring account of Origen’s life. Epiphanius’ less friendly
treatment is not based on Eusebius, but probably upon oral tradition which may, however,
be influenced by Eusebius. For Origen’s life see also Jer. Vir. 111 . 54. 64-7,4 and 10,1-7 are
quoted from Origen’s Commentary on the First Psalm, and 12,1-62,15 from Methodius’ On
the Resurrection.

2 Eus. H. E. 6.14.10.

3 Eus. H. E. 6.1.1.

4 Eus. H. E. 6.2.6; 12.

5 Eus. H. E. 6.3.1-7.

6 Eus. H. E. 6.2.7; 3.8; 19.10-14.

7 Eus. H. E. 6.32.2; Jer. Vir. 111 . 54.

8 Eus. H. E. 6.34-7; 4.1; 39.5.

ORIGEN

135

and shouted that, given the choice of either, he would rather sacrifice. 9
(4) Certainly, as is widely reported, he did not do this willingly either. But
since he had agreed do to it at all, he heaped incense on his hands and
dumped it on the altar fire. (5) Thus he was excluded from a martyr’s sta-
tus at that time by the confessors and martyrs who were his judges, and
expelled from the church. 10

2,6 Since he had consented to this at Alexandria and could not bear the
ridicule of those who reproached him, he left and elected to live in Pales-
tine, that is, in Judaea. (7) On arriving at Jerusalem he was urged by the
priesthood, as a man with such skill in exegesis and so highly educated,
to speak in church. * 11 (They say that the presbyterate had been conferred
upon him earlier, before his sacrifice.) 12 (8) And so, as I said, since those
who were then serving as priests in the holy church in Jerusalem urged
him to speak in church and strongly insisted on it, he stood up and sim-
ply recited the verse of the forty-ninth Psalm, omitting all the intervening
verses, “But unto the ungodly saith God, Why dost thou preach my laws
and takest my covenant in thy mouth?” 13 And he rolled the scroll up,
gave it back, and sat down in floods of tears, and all wept with him.

3,1 A while later, at the urgent request of many, he made the acquain-
tance of Ambrose, a prominent imperial official. (Some say that Ambrose
was a Marcionite, but some, that he was a Sabellian.) 14 At any rate, Ori-
gen taught him to shun and abjure the sect and adopt the faith of God’s
holy church, for at that time Origen was of the orthodox, catholic faith.
(2) Since Ambrose was from a different sect and, < being > an educated
man, was a zealous reader of the sacred scriptures, he asked Origen to
explain them to him because of the profundity of the ideas in the sacred
books. (3) In compliance and at his urging, Origen was willing to become
the interpreter of all the scriptures, as it were, and 15 made it his business
to expound them. It is said that < he spent* > twenty-eight years in Tyre

9 This appears to be a variation on the story of Origen’s pupil Potimiaena, who is
threatened with rape by gladiators, answers defiantly, and is put to death, Eus. H. E. 6.5.1-5.

10 At Photius Bibl. 11 Eusebius is inaccurately reported as saying that a synod expelled
Origen from Alexandria after this incident.

11 Cf. Eus. H. E. 6.23.4.

12 Eusebius places Origen’s ordination to the presbyterate at Caesarea, H. E. 6.84-5;
23 - 4 -

13 Ps. 49:16. At In Psalmos 12.348 Origen says, “A sinner should not preside in the
office of a teacher.”

14 Eusebius makes Ambrose a Valentinian, H. E. 6.18.1.

15 Holl eppypeup yevEcrSoa [xcd] E^yviawSai enezridevas; Dummer retains the xcu.

136

ORIGEN

in Phoenicia 16 (4) < devoting himself* > to a life of extreme piety, 17 and to
study and hard work. Ambrose provided support for him and his stenogra-
phers and assistants, 18 and papyrus and his other expenses; 19 and Origen
carried his work on the scripture through by burning the midnight oil, and
with the most intense study.

3,5 First, making a painstaking effort to collect the < books* > of the six
[Old Testament] versions — Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, Theodo-
tion, (6) and a fifth and a sixth [version] — < he issued them* > setting
each Hebrew expression next to them, and the actual < Hebrew > letters as
well. But directly opposite these, in a second column next to the Hebrew,
he made still another parallel text, but in Greek letters. (7) Thus this is,
and is called a Hexapla, 20 and besides the Greek translations < there are >
two parallel texts, of the Hebrew actually in < Hebrew > letters, and of the
Hebrew in Greek letters. It is thus the whole Old Testament in the version
called the Hexapla, and in the two Hebrew texts.

3,8 Origen had laboriously accomplished this entire work but he did
not preserve his fame untarnished till the end, for his wealth of learning
proved to be his great downfall, (g) Precisely because of his goal of leaving
none of the sacred scriptures uninterpreted he, as an allurement to sin,
disguised himself and issued mortally dangerous exegeses. (10) The so-
called Origenists < took their cue*> from this. Not the first kind, the < ones
who practice* > the obscenity. As I have already remarked, I cannot say
whether they originate with this Origen who is also called Adamantius, or
whether they have another founder whose name was < also > Origen.

3,11 It is said, however, that our Origen too contrived < a > measure
affecting his body. < For > some say that he severed a nerve so that he
would not be disturbed by sexual pleasure or inflamed and aroused by
carnal impulses. 21 (12) Others say no, but that he invented a drug to
apply to his genitals and dry them up. But others venture to ascribe other
inventions to him — that he discovered a medicinal plant to assist memory.

16 Jerome says that Origen died at Tyre, Vir, 111 . 54. Epiphanius locates Origen’s literary
activity there, and seems not to know of his headship of the catechetical school at Alex-
andria, which Eusebius emphasizes at H. E. 6.1-3.

17 Origen's austerities are mentioned at Eus. H. E. 6.3.9-12.

18 Holl oijuypaipok [xod] tou; ujivjpETOutjiv auxco; Dummer retains the xa(.

19 Eus. H. E. 6.23.1-2.

20 Cf. Eus. H. E. 6.16.1-4; Jer. In Tit. 3.9 (PL 26, 595B).

21 Eusebius (H. E. 6.8.1-3) says that Origen did something serious to his body, but does
not specify what.

ORIGEN

137

(13) And though I have no faith in the exaggerated stories about him,
I have not neglected to report what is being said.

4,1 The sect which sprang from him was located in Egypt first, but < it
is > now < to be found > among the very persons who are the most emi-
nent and appear to have adopted the monastic life, among those who
have really retired to the deserts and elected voluntary poverty. But this
is a dreadful sect and worse than all the ancient ones, and indeed, holds
beliefs similar to theirs. (2) For though it does not train its disciples to
perform the obscenity, it casts an evil suspicion, 22 one worse than the
obscenity, upon the Godhead itself. For Arius took his cue from Origen,
and so did the Anomoeans who succeeded him, and the rest.

4,3 For Origen claims, and at once 23 dares, if you please, to say first
that the Only-begotten Son cannot see the Father, and neither can the
Spirit behold the Son; 24 and angels surely cannot behold the Spirit, nor
men the angels. (4) And this is his first downfall. For he does not believe
that the Son is of the Father’s essence, but represents him as entirely dif-
ferent from the Father, and created besides. But he holds that he is called
“Son” by grace.

4,5 But he has other downfalls too, which are more serious. He says
that the human soul is preexistent, and that souls are angels and celestial
powers, but have sinned and so been shut up in this body as a punish-
ment. (6) They are sent < down > by God as a punishment, to undergo
a first judgment here. And so the body is called a “frame” (Sepa), says
Origen, because the soul has been “bound” (SeSect&cxi) in the body, imagin-
ing the ancient Greek fabrication. And he spins other yarns about this as
well. He says that we speak of a “soul” (iJjuxv]) because it has "cooled off”
(4>uX&v)vo!i) in coming down. 25

4,7 He smears on texts from the sacred scriptures that suit him,
though not as they are or with their real interpretation. He claims that the
words of the prophet, “Before I was humbled, I offended,” 26 are the words
of the soul itself, because it “offended” in heaven before it was “humbled”

22 Holl xaxvp, MSS Seivvjv.

23 Marcianus, Urbinas, the Georgian, Delahaye: xar ’ dpxvp; Venetianus, Holl: 7repi
apxcov.

24 Orig. Princ. 1.1.8; Cf. Justinian, Ep. Ad Mennam, Mansi IX 489C.

25 Orig. Princ. 2.8.3. Cf. Paschal Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria for 401 A.D.=Jer. Ep.
96.15.1; for 402=Jer. Ep. 98.1.10; for 404=Jer. Ep. 100.12.1-3.

26 Ps 118:6-7. Cf the attribution of the penitential and supplicatory Psalms to the fallen
Pistis Sophia, PS 52-56 et al.

138

ORIGEN

in the body. (8) And “Return unto thy rest, O my soul,” 27 are the words of
one who has been valiant in good works here, returning to his rest on high
because of the righteousness of his behavior.

4.9 And there is much else of the sort to be said. He says that Adam lost
the image of God. And this is why the skin tunics are signalized in scrip-
ture, for “He made them tunics of skin and clothed them” 28 refers to the
body. And he talks a great deal of nonsense which is widely repeated.

4.10 He makes the resurrection of the dead a defective thing, sometimes
nominally supporting it, sometimes denying it altogether, but at other
times < saying > that there is a partial resurrection, (n) Finally, he gives
an allegorical interpretation of whatever he can — Paradise, its waters,
the waters above the heavens, the water under the earth. He never stops
saying these ridiculous things and others like them. But I have already
mentioned things of this sort about him, and discussed them at length, in
some of my other works. 29

5,1 But even now, in the Sect that deals with him, it will do no harm to
describe them again for the same reason and purpose, and give his refuta-
tion from his own counterfeits. (2) For there is a great deal of his nonsense
that came later, and the cultivation of an idea that is false and departs
from the truth. (3) For he appeared to speak against every sect before him
and refute each one, but later he spat this sect up into the world, one of
no little influence.

5,4 So then, first I shall quote his own words in refutation of his false,
bogus notion; then I shall show what I, in my mediocrity, intend to say
against him. And here they are, the things he told the world in The First
Psalm ; (5) for though he is always on slippery ground in every scripture,
in the essential parts he erred in so many words.

But since < his writings are* > very bulky — as 1 mentioned, he is said to
have written a long work on every scripture — < it is impossible to quote
all of it; but Origen never* > refused to say what he thought < in his expo-
sitions of the scripture* >. (6) And he has a modest reputation for what
he said about ethics, types of animals and so on in his sermons and pref-
aces, and often gave clever expositions. (7) But in his position on doc-
trines, and about faith and higher speculation, he is the wickedest of
all before and after him, except for the shameless behavior in the sects.

27 Ps 114:7.

28 Gen 3:21.

29 Epiphanius means Anc. 54-64. See also the later Epiph/John of Jerusalem=Jer. Ep.
51 - 5 - 1 ; 7 -

ORIGEN

139

(8) (For as I indicated above, he chose to adopt even an ascetic style of
life. Some say that his stomach was ruined by his excessively severe regi-
men, and fasting and abstention from meat.

5,9 Well then, I shall quote his own words from the First Psalm 30
< along with > his doctrinal speculations in it — word for word, so that no
one may call my attack on him vexatious. (10) Not, by any means, that he
strayed from the truth only in the First Psalm; as I have often said, he did
it in every exposition. But because of the bulk of his work let me select
some things from his Psalm here, and show the whole of his unsoundness
in the faith from one, two or three remarks, of course taking care to speak
against them. (11) And here, at once, is the text of every word, to show you,
scholarly hearer, that Origen plainly held that the Son of God is a creature,
and also show you, from his impudence about the Son, that he taught that
the Holy Spirit is the creature of a creature. (12) Let us take a part of the
Psalm, from the beginning until the actual expression [in question], in
Origen’s own words.

The beginning of Origen’s commentary on the first Psalm

6,1 God’s oracles tell us that the sacred scriptures have been locked away and
sealed with the “key of David” 31 — also, perhaps, with the seal of which it said,
“an impression of a seal, hallowed to the Lord ” 32 They are sealed, in other
words, by the power of the God who gave them, the power which is meant
by the seal. (2) In the Book of Revelation John instructs us further about this
locking away and sealing and says, “And to the angel of the church in Phila-
delphia write, These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath
the key of David, he that openeth, and none shall shut, and shutteth, and
none shall open. I know thy works; behold, I have set before thee an open
door, and no man can shut it .” 33 (3) And a little further on, “And I saw in
the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the
backside, sealed with seven seals. And / saw another strong angel proclaim-
ing with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals
thereof? (4) And no man in heaven, nor on earth, neither under the earth,
was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept, because no
man was found worthy to open the book, neither to look thereon. (5) And

30 Eusebius mentions this commentary at H. E. 6.25.1.

31 Rev 3:7.

32 Exod 28:36; Sir 45:12.

33 Rev 3:7-8.

140

ORIGEN

one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of
Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seven seals
thereof ” 34

And, of the sealing alone, Isaiah says the following: “And all these words
shall be unto you as the words of this book that is sealed. The which, if It be
given to any man that is learned, saying Read this, he shall say, I cannot
read it, for it is sealed, And this book shall be given into the hands of a man
that is not learned, and one shall say unto him, Read this. And he shall say,
I am not learned. ” 35

6,7 We must take it that this is said not only of John’s Revelation and
Isaiah, but of all of sacred scripture — admittedly, even by those who are
capable of a fair understanding of the oracles of God. For scripture is filled
with riddles, parables, difficult sayings and manifold other forms of obscu-
rity, and is hard for human comprehension. (8) In his desire to teach us this
the Savior too said, “Woe unto you lawyers!" — as though scribes and Phari-
sees held the key but made no effort to find the way to open the door. “For
ye have taken away the key of knowledge. Ye entered not in yourselves, and
them that were entering in ye suffered not to enter. ” 36

7,1 I have said this by way of preface, holy Ambrose, since I am compelled
by your great love of learning and my respect for your kindness and humility,
to embark on a struggle of the utmost difficulty, and admittedly beyond me
and my strength. (2) And since I was hesitant for a long time, knowing the
danger not only of speaking of holy things but, far more, of writing of them
and leaving one’s work for posterity, you will be my witness before God of the
disposition with which I have done this — even though, with all the world, I
too inquire into these matters. For with all sorts of friendly blandishment,
and with godly encouragement, you have brought me to it. (3) And I some-
times hit the mark, but sometimes argue too vehemently or < otherwise * >
appear to say something < too daring* >. I have, however, investigated the
sacred writings without despising the aptly put, “When thou speakest of God,
thou art judged of God," and, “It is no small risk to speak even the truth
of God."

7,4 Now since without God there can be no good thing, most of all no
understanding of the inspired scriptures, I ask you to approach the God and
Father of all through our Savior and High Priest, the originated (yn^Tcq)

34 Rev 5:1-5.

35 Isa 29:11-12.

36 Luke 11:52.

ORIGEN

141

God, and pray that he wUL grant me, first, to seek rightiy. For there is a prom-
ise of finding for those who seek; [but] it may be that there is no promise at
all for seekers if God deems them to be proceeding by a road that does not
lead to finding.

So far the excerpt from Origen

8,1 And first I need to discuss the term, “originated God,” with this brag-
gart with his illusory wisdom, this searcher out of the unsearchable and
exhibitor of the heavenly realms, who, as a greater man than I has said,
has filled the world with nonsense. (2) And anyone can see that there
are many equivalents and synonyms. (3) If the term were used by some-
one else, one might say that this too had been said with right intent. But
since I have found in many instances that Origen wrongly distinguishes
between the Only-begotten God and the Father’s Godhead and essence —
and the same with the Holy Spirit — it is plain that by saying “originated
God” he is pronouncing him a creature.

8.4 For though some would like to outwit me and say that “originated”
is the same thing as “begotten,” < this > is not admissible. < The latter may
be said only of God, but the former* > may not be said of God, but only of
creatures. “Originated” is one thing, “begotten,” another.

8.5 Now as to Origen’s statement that God is created or originated, let
me ask first, "How was the person created whom, by this expression of
yours, you honor as God? And if he is created, how can he be worshiped?”
(6) Set aside the holy apostle’s censure of those who make gods of created
things; grant that a creature can be worshiped as God by the principles of
the godly faith, which worships the creator, not the creature! Then it will
be reasonable for you to derive your erroneous argument from the piety of
the fathers. But you can certainly not prove this. (7) And even if you ven-
tured to steal it from somewhere and distort it — even so, you Godstruck
simpleton, you cannot change the good sense of the godly into judgment
as poor as this! Both your intent and your argument are against you;
(8) as I said, no created thing is worthy of worship. But if it is worthy
of worship at all, then, since there are many other created things, it will
make no difference to us if we worship them all along with the one crea-
ture; they are its fellow servants, and in the same category.

g,i But let us see by the four Gospels through which the divine Word,
when he came, revealed our whole salvation, whether Christ has ever said,
“God created me,” or, “My Father created me!” And let us see whether the
Father declared in any of the Gospels, “I have created the Son and sent

142

ORIGEN

him to you.” (2) But enough of this for now; as to proof-texts, I have often
cited them at length against people who introduce the notion of the Son’s
creaturehood.

9,3 Even here, however, it will do no harm to show the ease with which
the term can be refuted and ask the would-be sage, “Mister, how can he
be a creature when he says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me, and
we two are one?” 37 (4) How can he be different from the Father when
he has equal honor? For “No man knoweth the Son save the Father, nor
the Father, save the Son,” 38 and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father?” 39

g,5 And in turn, resuming the thread I am likewise going to speak of
all his doubts about resurrection, again from his own words. And let me
make the whole of his opinion plain and reveal the infidelity of his doctri-
nal position from one passage. (6) < For > even though he has often spo-
ken at length of this and talked nonsense about it in many books, I shall
still offer the refutation from the argument he gives in The First Psalm
against the sure hope of us who believe in the resurrection.

10.1 And it is as follows. He says, Therefore the ungodly shall not arise
In the judgment . 40 Next (in his usual manner of parading the versions,
Likewise Theodotlon, Aqulla and Symmachus. Then he scornfully attacks
the sons of the truth:

10.2 Thus the simpler believers suppose that the ungodly do not attain the
resurrection and are not held worthy of the divine judgment; but they have
no way of explaining what they suppose the resurrection is, and what sort of
judgment they imagine. (3) For even if they think they are expressing their
opinion of these matters, examination will show that they cannot defend the
consequences of their beliefs, having no grasp of the nature of resurrection
and judgment.

10,4 Thus if we ask them what it is a resurrection of, they reply, “Of the
bodies we have now." If we then ask further whether or not there is a res-
urrection of our whole being before we examine them they say, “Of our
whole being.’” (5) But if, allowing for the naivete of those who do not even
< understand* > the mutability of nature, we raise further questions and
inquire whether all the blood that has been lost in bleedings will rise with
our bodies — and all the flesh that has wasted away in illness, and all the

37 John 14:10; 10:30.

38 Matt 11:27.

39 John 14:9.

40 Ps 1:5.

ORIGEN

143

hair we have ever had, or only the hair we had at the last, towards our end —
(6) they are distressed and sometimes take offense at the questioning since
they believe we must allow God to deal with these things as he wills. But
sometimes, since they believe that our hair at the end of this life goes down
to the grave with the body, they say that it will arise with it. (7) The better of
them, however, to avoid having to take account of the blood which has flowed
from our bodies on many occasions, and the flesh which changes <to> sweat
or something else in illness, say that it is our body at the end that rises.

u,i These are the would-be sage’s trifling objections to the truth; I have
been obliged to quote them as proof for those who wish to know the full
sense of his disbelief in the resurrection. Indeed, he makes many other
< silly remarks* > in the course of the Psalm, one after another. (2) For he
says, Therefore the ungodly shall not arise in the judgment . 41 From here on
he attacks those who declare the certainty of the resurrection, and who
believe in the sure hope of the resurrection of the dead, for their naivete.
And by adducing many weak points, inculcating a sophistical opinion,
(3) < and presenting > no reliable argument but any old thing drawn from
logic for the ruin of his followers, he tried to overthrow the confession
of our true hope in the resurrection by referring to the accidents of our
nature.

11,4 But given my limited ability, I wouldn’t dare hope to improve on
those who have done good work already and replied with full justice to
all the rhetorical villainy Origen has thought of. I believe I may rest con-
tent with the blessed Methodius’ remarks against Origen with reference to
the matter of the resurrection. I shall present these here, word for word;
Methodius’ words as he composed them are as follows:

An epitome of Origen’s arguments, from the writings of Methodius

12,1 Thus the simpler believers suppose that the ungodly do not attain the
resurrection < and are not held worthy of the divine judgment; but they have
no way of explaining > what they think resurrection is, < or what sort of
judgment they imagine >. (2) For even if they think they are expressing their
opinion of these matters, examination will show that they cannot defend the
consequences of their beliefs < and have no grasp of the mode of the resur-
rection and judgment >.

41 Ps 1:5.

144

ORIGEN

12,3 Thus if we ask them what it is a resurrection of, they reply, “of the
bodies we have now. ” If we then ask further whether or not there is a resur-
rection of our whole being before we examine them they say, “of our whole
being. ” (4) But f, allowing for the naivete < of those who do not even under-
stand the mutability of nature >, we raise further questions < and inquire >
whether all the blood that has been lost in bleedings will rise with our
bodies — and all the flesh and hair we have ever had, or just what we had
toward our end — (5) they will be distressed and take refuge in the answer
that God < may > do as he will The better of them, however, will say that it is
our body at the end that rises, and thus not have to take account of the same
blood which flows from our bodies on many occasions, < and the flesh which
changes to sweat or something else in illness >.

12,6 But because of the natural mutability of bodies and points of this
sort, we have raised further questions. As foods are taken into the body and
change their appearances, (7) so our bodies too are changed in birds of prey
and wild beasts, and become parts of those bodies. And when they in turn
are eaten by men or other animals, they are changed correspondingly and
become the bodies of men and other animals. (8) And as this continues for a
long time, the same body must often become a part of several men. In the res-
urrection, then, whose body will it be? And as a result we become immersed
in senseless drivel.

13,1 And after these objections they resort to the reply that all things are
possible with God, and cite texts from the scriptures which, if taken at their
face value, are capable of supporting their opinion. (2) For example, Ezekiel’s
“And the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me forth in the spirit
and set me in the midst of the plain, and it was full of men’s bones. And he
brought me about them round about, and lo, there were very many upon the
face of the plain, and lo, they were very dry. (3) And he said unto me, Son of
man, can these bones live? And I said, Lord God, thou knowest these things.
(4) And he said unto me, Prophesy, son of man. And thou shalt say unto
them, Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith Adonai, the Lord,
unto these bones: Lo, I will bring into you the breath of life, and I will put
sinews upon you and cover you with flesh, and I will stretch skin upon you
and put my Spirit within you, and ye shall live. And I will place you in your
own land, and ye shall know that I am the Lord ." 42

13,5 They use this passage <as> something quite convincing. But they
also < gather > sayings from the Gospels, such as, “There shall be wailing and

42 Ezek 37:11.

ORIGEN

145

gnashing of teeth ,’’ 43 and, “Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell,” 44 and Paul’s, “He shall raise up your mortal bodies through his
Spirit that dwelleth in you. ” 45

14.1 But every lover of truth, who is just as determined as they to contend
for the resurrection, must both preserve the tradition of the ancients and
guard against falling into the tomfoolery of contemptible notions which are
both impossible and unworthy of God. ( 2 ) And at this point it must be stated
that by nature no body ever has the same material substratum, since some-
thing such as food is put into it from without, and as this food is eliminated,
further things such as vegetable and animal products are put in place of
the further materials which have been put into it. ( 3 ) Thus the body has not
inaptly been called a river. For strictly speaking, the first substratum in our
bodies is scarcely the same for two days, even though, despite the fluidity of
the nature of a body, Paul’s body, say, or Peter’s, is always the same. ( Same-
ness does not apply only to the soul, the nature of which is neither in flux like
our [body’s], nor ever susceptible of addition.) ( 4 ) This is because the form
which identifies the body is the same, just as the features which characterize
Peter’s or Paul’s bodies remain the same — characteristics < like > childhood
scars, and such peculiarities <as> moles, and any others besides.

14,5 This form, the bodily, which constitutes Peter and Paul, encloses the
soul once more at the resurrection, changed for the better — but surely not
this extension which underlay it at the first. ( 6 ) For as the form is < the same >
from infancy until old age even though the features appear to undergo con-
siderable change, so we must suppose that, though its change for the better
will be very great, our present form will be the same in the world to come.

14,7 For a soul which is in bodily places must have bodies befitting the
places. ( 8 ) And just as, if we had to become water creatures and Lived in the
sea, we would surely need gills and the other features offish, so, as we are to
inherit the kingdom of heaven and live in places superior to ours, we must
have spiritual bodies. ( 9 ) But despite its change to greater glory the form of
the previous body does not vanish, just as, at the transfiguration, the forms of
Jesus, Moses and Elijah were not different from what they had been.

15.1 Therefore do not be offended if someone should say that the first
substratum will not be the same then. For to those who can understand the
matter, reason shows that, even now, the first substratum is not the same

43 Matt 8:12.

44 Matt 10:28.

45 Rom 8:11.

146

ORIGEN

two days running. (2) It also should be realized that one thing is sown, but a
different thing comes up; for “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body .” 46 (3) And Paul, practically teaching us that we will discard < every >
earthly characteristic at the resurrection while our form will be preserved,
adds, “This I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption .” 41 (4) This will natu-
rally be maintained in the case of the holy < body > by Him who gave form
to the flesh — which is flesh no longer, but whatever was once characteristic
of the flesh will be characteristic of the spiritual body.

15,5 And < as to> the sayings of the scriptures which our brethren cite,
there is this to be said. First, Ezekiel’s, since the simpler sort prefer to < rely >
on it. According to these lines there will be no resurrection of flesh, but only of
bones, skin and sinews. (6 )At the same time they must be shown that they are
too hasty, since they have not understood the passage. Simply because bones
are mentioned we need not take them to mean the bones we have— just as it
is obvious that, in “Our bones were scattered beside Hades, ” 48 “All my bones
were scattered ,” 49 and, “Heal me, for my bones were troubled ,” 50 it is plain
that “bones" in the common acceptation of the word are not intended

15,7 Now to this tally Ezekiel adds, “They say, Our bones are dried up. Are
they therefore saying, “Our bones are dried up ,” 51 with the intent that the
bones be reassembled and rise? But this cannot be. (8) They could be saying,
“Our bones are dried up,” however, because they are in captivity and have
lost all their living moisture. And so they add, “Our hope is perished, we are
lost .” 52 Thus the promise of the people’s resurrection is a promise of their
rising from their fall, and from the death which, in a way, they have died for
their sins by being abandoned to their enemies. (9) Sinners too are called
“sepulchers full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness ” 53 by the Savior.
And it is fitting that God open each of our graves of, and bring us forth from
the graves quickened, as the Savior brought Lazarus forth.

16,1 But as to “There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth ,” 54 we must
confront them with the objection that, as in this life the creator has made

46 1 Cor 15:44.

47 1 Cor 15:50.

48 Ps. 140:7.

49 Ps 21:15.

50 Ps 6:3.

51 Ezek 37:11.

52 Ezek 37:11.

53 Matt 32:27.

54 Matt 8:12.

ORIGEN

147

every member of the body for some purpose, so he has made the teeth to chew
solid food Why do the damned need teeth, then? Our brethren do not claim
that they eat in hell. (2) And it must be pointed out that not everything in
scripture is to be taken literally. Scripture says, “Thou hast broken the teeth
of sinners, ” 55 and, “The Lord hath crushed the teeth of the lions ,” 56 but who
is so foolish as to suppose that, while preserving sinners’ bodies, God breaks
only their teeth? (3) Just as whoever wanted the lines to read like that was
obliged by his discomfort with them to resort to allegory, so one must look for
the gnashing of the teeth of the damned. The soul has the faculty of “chew-
ing [on things],” and when convicted of its sins will “gnash its teeth” by the
clashing of its thoughts . 51

16.6 But “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell ” 58
perhaps teaches that the soul is incorporeal, or even, perhaps, means that
the soul will not be punished apart from the body. I have already spoken
from the naturalist’s perspective of the form and the first substratum of the
body.

16.7 And the apostle’s saying, “He shall also quickenyour mortal bodies, ” 59
even when the body is mortal and incapable of true life, can be a proof that,
although the bodily form of which we have spoken is by nature mortal, it will
itself be changed from a “body of death, ” 60 be quickened by the life-giving
Spirit “when Christ who is our life shall appear ," 61 and from < fleshly >
become spiritual. (8) And “Some man will say, How are the dead raised
up, and with what body do they come ?” 62 is also plain proof that the first
substratum will not be raised, (g) For if we have understood the illustra-
tion properly, we must hold that when the generative principle in the grain
of wheat has laid hold of the matter which surrounds it, has permeated it
entirely < and > has taken control of its form, it imparts its own powers to
what was formerly earth, water, air and fire, and by prevailing over their
characteristics transforms them into the thing of which it is the creator. And
thus the ear of grain comes to maturity, vastly different from the original
seed in size, shape and complexity.

55 Ps 3:8.

56 Ps 57:7.

57 Holl: 9povv][xdTuv; MSS: oSovtcov.

58 Matt 10:28.

59 Rom 6:11.

60 Rom 7:24.

61 Col 3:4.

62 1 Cor 15:35.

148

ORIGEN

Proclus’ own words 63

17,1 So much by way of summary of the points which Origen endeavored to
make in his treatise on resurrection, in proof of a very complex hypothesis.
But consider too the points which follow from these. ( 2 ) It remains to take up
the additional texts from scripture so that, like an image < with > all parts
of it in proportion, this presentation may < thereby > gain < symmetry > and
be fully framed as a whole, lacking nothing that contributes to its shape and
beauty. ( 3 ) We must therefore explain why the scriptures which enable one
to perfect a better proof agree with the above. For if one is capable of a pre-
cise understanding of this and falls short in nothing that is needed, he will
realize that the resurrection may not be taken to apply to this body which
cannot remain unchanged forever, but that it must apply to the spiritual
body, in which the very same form that is even now preserved in this body
will be retained — so that, as has also been said by Origen, each of us will be
the same even in appearance.

17,4 For he proposed that the resurrection will be as follows: Since the
material body is mutable, he says, and since it never remains even briefly
the same but is increased and diminished in the form characteristic of the
man, by which his appearance is preserved, we must of necessity expect the
resurrection to be reserved for the form alone. ( 5 ) And lest you say, “I don’t
understand" — Origen’s treatment of this was difficult — I shall explain the
sense of this more clearly to you here. ( 6 ) You have surely seen an animal
skin, or something else of the sort, filled with water in such a way that, if it
is emptied of a little of its water and then filled with a little, it always shows
the same shape; for the container’s contents must conform to the shape of
the container. ( 7 ) Well then, suppose the water is leaking out. If one adds an
amount of water equal to that which is spilled and does not allow the skin to
be entirely emptied of water, unless that occurs the added water must look
like the water which was there before, since the container of the inflowing
and the outflowing water is the same.

17,8 Now if one chooses to compare the body to this, he will not be put to
shame. For what is brought in by the food in place of the flesh which has been
eliminated will likewise be changed to the shape of the form which contains
it. And the part of it that is dispersed to the eyes looks like the eyes, the part
that is dispersed to the face looks like the face, and the part that is dispersed
to the other members looks like them. Thus everyone looks the same, though

63 The Origenist speaker Proclus has been summarizing Origen’s teaching on resurrec-
tion. Now he begins to speak for himself.

ORIGEN

149

the flesh in them is not their original flesh, but the flesh of the form whose
shape the incoming was given.

17,9 Now if we are not the same in body even for a few days but are the
same in the form of the body — only this is stable from its creation — all
the more, neither will we be the same in the flesh then, but we shall be the
same in the form which now < and > always is preserved and remains in us.
(10) For as, although the body is not the same now, its appearance is kept
the same because it has the same form, so, though the body will not be the
same then either, the form will be manifest, grown more glorious — no longer
in a perishable, but in an impassible and spiritual body as Jesus’ was at the
transfiguration when he ascended the mountain with Peter, and as were the
bodies of Moses and Elijah who appeared to him.

18,1 So much for this; this, in sum, is the sense of Origen’s doctrines. (2) But
suppose that one who doubts this urges the body of Christ — for he is called
“the firstborn from the dead ” 64 and the “firstfruits of them that slept ” 66 —
and says that we must expect the resurrection of everyone’s < bodies > to be
like the resurrection of Christ, so that “God will bring them which sleep in
Jesus with him ’’ 66 in the same way that Christ was raised. But, [he will go on
to say], Jesus’ < body > has risen even with the flesh it had, and with its bones,
as Thomas was convinced. We [ for our part ] shall say, (3) "But Christ’s body
was not 'by the will of a man ,’ 67 ‘of pleasure accompanying sleep ,’ 66 'con-
ceived in iniquities and begotten in sins .’ 69 It was 'of the Holy Spirit, the
power of the Highest and the Virgin, ’ ” 70 while yours is the product of sleep,
pleasure and dirt. (4) And thus the sage, Sirach, said, “When a man dieth it
is said, He shall inherit creeping things, snakes and worms .” 71 And < David >
in the eighty-seventh Psalm said, “Wilt thou do wonders for the dead, or shall
physicians rise up and confess thee? Will thy mercy be told in the grave and
thy faithfulness in destruction? Will thy wondrous works be known in the
dark, and thy righteousness in the forgotten land ?” 72 (5) And for one who
cares to gather them from the scriptures, there are other passages of the

64 Col 1:18; Rev 1:5.

65 1 Cor 15:20.

66 1 Thes 4:14.

67 John 1:13.

68 Wisd Sol 7:2.

69 Ps 50:7.

70 Cf. Luke 1:35.

71 Sir 10:11.

72 Ps 87:11-13.

150

ORIGEN

same kind. < Let us omit them * >, Lest, by mentioning them all, I make my
discourse many times longer than what has been said.

For the rest, the words of Methodius

19,1 Proclus, then, came to a reluctant halt and the hearers were silent for
some time, for they had been pretty well cast down into unbelief. And I saw
that he had really finished, raised my head unnoticed by the rest, and heaved
a sigh like sailors when the swell subsides, though I was still trembling
slightly, and giddy — (/ had been hit, I can tell you, and was overwhelmed
by the frightfulness of the words.) ( 2 ) I turned to Auxentius and addressed
him by name. “Auxentius, ” I said, “I believe that the line, 'Two proceeding
together ,’ 13 was not spoken in vain, since we have two opponents. Therefore
‘Let the both of us become as strong as the both of them .’ 74 ( 3 ) I choose you
for my ally and fellow combatant in the battle against them to keep Aglao-
phon, in alliance with Proclus and armed against us with Origen’s objec-
tions, from sacking the resurrection. ( 4 ) Come then, let us stand our ground
against their sophisms, fearing none of the counter-arguments by which the
cowardly are struck. For there is no soundness or firmness whatever in them,
but merely a specious show of words rehearsed for the purpose of awe ing
and swaying the hearers, not for the sake of the truth and for the hear-
ers’ benefit, but so that the words will sound wise to the audience. ( 5 ) Thus
probable propositions, embellished for the sake of beauty and to give plea-
sure, are sometimes thought better by the masses than the results of precise
investigation — though the teachers are not striving for improvement and
still more, for holiness, but to please and succeed, like the sophists who take
money for what they say, and cut the price of their wisdom for applause.

19,6 “Anciently, expositions were always brief, and were given by persons
who were at pains, not to please, but to benefit the audiences of their day. But
latterly, ever since, from carelessness, anyone has been permitted to interpret
the scriptures, they have all been filled with conceit and lost their keenness
for doing good, but have prided themselves on their progress in debating as
though they were clever enough to know everything — ashamed to admit that
they needed teaching but < ambitious* > to contend, like their teachers, and
to seek to surpass.. . 75 ( 7 ) Thus from over-confidence they have lapsed from

73 Iliad 10.244.

74 Iliad 21.308-9.

75 Some material has fallen out at this point.

ORIGEN

151

piety, meekness, and the belief that God can do all that he has promised, and
have come to meaningless, blasphemous disputations, unaware that deeds
were not performed for the sake of words, but words [were spoken] for the
sake of deeds — as < in > medicine, whereby the sick must be cured by the
putting of set words into application — so that, once we have been tuned,
our minds may be in full accord with our best words, and, like lyres, pro-
vide behavior in tune with our speech, but not discordant and inharmonious.
( 8 ) To attain to righteousness we must truly struggle to practice it — not
struggle in appearance, setting foot on the path of wisdom with a limp, and
in place of a real effort making an apparent one, disguised with pretexts,
pretenses, and all the trappings of hypocrisy.

20,1 For there are indeed persons who, like women artfully made up
for deception, < beguile the simple* > with the embraces of words show-
ily adorned, unless someone examines them with a concern for those even
younger in the faith, and in a sober manner. ( 2 ) One must take care, then,
before he learns to accept this sort of talk with trust. For deceivers often over-
take the wavering, just as the Sirens overtake those who flee from them by
disguising their hatred of humanity with beautiful singing from afar. ( 3 ) Or
what do you < think > of this situation, Auxentius?” I said.

“The same as you,” he replied.

20.4 “Mustn’t we say, then, that the heretical sophists are no more than
forgers of images of truth, who, like painters, know nothing of truth? For
painters attempt to portray shipwrights, boats and pilots without knowing
how to build or pilot ships.

20.5 “Now then, let’s scrape their paint off, <if>you will, to convince those
who, like children, admire such paintings that neither is this ship a ship, nor
this pilot a pilot. It is a wall with its surface decorated for pleasure’s sake with
paint and pictures, and the artists who made these things with their paints
are imitators, not of a ship but of the image of a ship and pilot."

20.6 “For one who is eager to hear you, your introduction is lengthy.”

“Lengthy, my friend, but useful If one were to remove the words of inspired

scripture which these people have daubed on their opinion with bright colors
for their own deception, and have arrogantly called righteousness and truth
when they know nothing about righteousness, how scornfully do you think
they would be treated if they were stripped of such names?"

“Very, ” replied Auxentius.

20.7 “Would you like to be the leader on this journey, Auxentius,” I said,
“or should I?”

“By rights you should,” he said, “since you’re initiating the discussion.”

152

ORIGEN

21,1 “All right, it was said — come on, let’s examine Aglaophon’s mind a
bit, going in order from the beginning. It was said that because of its trans-
gression the soul has assumed this body we wear, after living blissfully with-
out it in former times. ( 2 ) For < he said > that the skin tunics are the bodies in
which it has been the soul’s lot to be shut up, to be punished for their deeds by
carrying corpses. Or wasn’t this what you said first, Doctor, at the beginning?
Come, if you think I’ve forgotten something, remind me.”

20.3 “There’s no need to remind you of it; this was exactly what I said at
the beginning. ”

20.4 “Oh? As you went on, didn’t you also say repeatedly that, because of
its preoccupation with adornment, comfort, and the other temptations that
accompany the craving of the belly, the body is a hindrance to our under-
standing and knowledge of the true reality? And further, that it is the cause
of blasphemies and all sorts of sins, since by itself, apart from a body, a soul
cannot sin at all? ( 5 ) And therefore the soul must remain free and devoid of
a body after its departure, so that it may be without sin and transgression in
the heavens, where, too, it will hold converse with the angels. For this body
is the soul’s accessory and abettor in pollution and sin; ( 6 ) there is no way a
soul can sin without a body. Hence, for its preservation without sin forever,
the soul will never again receive the body, to incline it to corruption and
unrighteousness here below. ”

21.7 ‘Yes, this was also said. ”

“Oh?” I said. “And do you think you’ve said this well and rightly?”

“What difference does it make to you?" said Algaophon. “But you aren’t
refuting my argument.”

21.8 “No difference, ” said I, “but I want to see your argument tested by
your own words. ”

“I spoke well and rightly,” he said.

“But if someone contradicts and disagrees with himself, do you think his
case is put well and rightly?”

“Indeed not!”

21. 9 “Do you think he’s clumsily pretending to the truth?”

“The worst of anyone," he said.

“Then you don’t approve of someone who plays the tune of his words with
a false note?”

“I sure don’t!”

21.10 “Then you can’t possibly approve of yourself, because you’re speak-
ing clumsily. You’ve allowed that souls have strayed from God’s command-
ment and sinned without bodies, and have said that God gave them the skin

ORIGEN

153

tunics later because of their wrongdoing so that they would be punished by
carrying corpses — interpreting ‘tunics’ to mean the bodies. But in the course
of your argument you forget your original proposition and say that, by itself
the soul can’t sin. (11) Sinning is in no sense its nature; the body has become
its accessory in evils of all sorts. Thus it will be without a body for all eternity,
so that it may never again be incited to wickedness as it was before by the
body. (12) And yet you had first said that the soul had sinned in Paradise
before it had a body, when it was still blessed and free from pain. For once
its sin had been strengthened because of its obedience to the serpent, the
soul was given the body as a prison in punishment for its transgression of
the commandment.

21,13 “Thus either your former or your Latter statement is incorrect. Either
the soul sinned before it had a body and won’t be any more of a sinner even
if it doesn’t get one, and your blather about the body’s not rising is worth-
less. Or else it sinned with a body, and the skin tunics can’t be considered to
be bodies. (14) For the man clearly broke the divine commandment before
the tunics were made; indeed, the tunics were made to cover the nakedness
which had resulted from their sin. (15) But do I convince you, and do you see
that you’ve offered contrary propositions’? Has this been made clear to you,
Aglaophon, ” I asked, “or don’t you understand what I mean yet?"

21,16 “I understand,” he said, and don’t need to hear anything twice; I
failed to notice that I spoke incorrectly. If I allowed that the skin tunics are
bodies, I was obliged to admit that the soul had sinned even before it entered
a body, (17) for the transgression came before the making of the tunics. For
the tunics are made for them because of the transgression, the transgression
isn’t committed because of the tunics. And because of this admission I had
to agree that this body is not an accessory to evil, but that the soul in itself
is responsible.

21,18 “Thus the soul will sin even if it doesn’t get the body, since even before
it did, it sinned without a body. And it is foolish to say that the body cannot
come back to life for fear of its becoming the soul’s accessory in sin. (lg) For
just as the soul sinned even before it had a body, so it will sin after discard-
ing the body, even if it doesn’t receive a body again. On these grounds, then,
I must not approve of my or anyone else’s saying that the skin tunics are our
bodies. For if I did, I would have to admit the truth of your argument."

22,1 “But Aglaophon,” I said, “don’t you think you’ve made another
error?"

“What error?”

154

ORIGEN

You said,” I replied, “that the body has been contrived as a prison and
bond for the soul, and this is why the prophet called us ‘prisoners of earth,’ 76
and David called us ‘bound.’” 77

22.2 “I can’t answer you offhand," said Aglaophon. “But why not discuss
it with someone else?”

22.3 '4 nd I — I saw that he was embarrassed, and afraid of losing the
argument. “Do you think I’m trying to refute you from envy,” I said, “and
am not eager to clear the matter up? Don’t flag under questioning, friend.
( 4 ) You see that we aren’t talking about unimportant matters, but about the
way in which we are to believe. I doubt that anything does a man as much
harm as the essentials of the faith, if he should have a false idea of them.

22 , 5 78 “Come on, face my questions willingly! Explain yourself, and cor-
rect me if you feel I am speaking an untruth, thinking more of the truth than
of me. For I believe that to be refuted is better than to refute, to the same
degree that to be saved from harm oneself is better than to save someone
else from harm. ( 6 ) Well then, let’s compare our statements and see if there is
any difference between them. The things we are arguing about are no small
matters, but things which it is better to know about, and a disgrace not to.
Well then, you don’t believe that the body returns to life, but I do."

“Precisely, ” he said, “and this is the reason I have spoken. ”

22.7 “And,” I went on, “you said that the body is a prison, dungeon, tomb,
burden and chain, while I disagree."

‘You’re right,” he said.

22.8 “In fact, you’ve said that the body is an accessory to licentiousness,
error, pain, anger, and in a word, all the other evils that hinder the soul’s
improvement and do not allow us to attain the understanding and knowl-
edge of true reality. ( 9 ) For even if we attempt a search for some part of
reality, darkness always falls and obscures our reason, and does not permit
us a clear view of the truth. For perception by our ears is full of deceit, as you
said, and perception by our sight and by our other senses.”

22,10 “Eubulius,” he said, “do you see that I’m ready to compliment you
whenever you explain my words correctly?"

23,1 “All right, to get you to compliment me some more — if you people
think that the body is a prison, it cannot still be blamed for the soul’s wicked-

76 Lam 3:34.

77 Ps 145:7.

78 From this point until the end of the chapter we renumber the paragraphs, to correct
an apparent typographical error in Holl.

ORIGEN

155

ness and unrighteousness, but on the contrary, must be considered the cause
of its moderation and discipline. (2) Look here, you can follow me better in
this way. Where do we take people with bodily ailments? To the doctors, don’t
we?"

“Obviously," said Aglaophon.

23.3 “And where do we take criminals? Isn’t it to the magistrates?”

“Of course!”

“Is this so that they will be punished justly for what they have done?”
I said.

“Yes.”

“But justice is the finest thing there is?”

He agreed.

“But is one who gives a just judgment right— for he is judging justly?”

He assented.

“But is the right thing beneficial?”

“Plainly. ”

23.4 “Then those who are judged are benefited. Their wickedness is
removed because it is prevented by their torments, just as illnesses are
removed by surgery and pharmacy at the doctor’s. For the punishment of
the criminal is the correction of the soul, which throws off the severe disease
of wickedness.”

He agreed.

23.5 “Oh? Wouldn’t you say that the punishments which are proportion-
ate to their crimes are imposed with justice on criminals, just as surgery pro-
portionate to their hurts is applied to patients?"

He nodded.

23.6 “Then one whose crimes deserve death is punished with death, one
whose crimes deserve the lash is punished with the lash, and one whose
crimes merit imprisonment is punished with prison?’’

Aglaophon agreed.

23.7 “And the offender incurs the penalty of prison, blows, or some other
punishment of the sort, so that he will reform and abandon his wickedness,
like bent wood straightened by hard blows?”

“You’re quite right,” he said.

23.8 “The judge isn’t punishing him for his past crime but for the future,
so that he won’t do it again?”

“Plainly, ” he said.

23, g “For it is plain that prison eliminates his criminal tendencies by not
permitting him to do as he pleases?”

“True.”

156

ORIGEN

23.10 “Then he is prevented from misbehaving, since his imprisonment
does not Leave him free to enjoy his pleasures. It confines him and teaches
him respect for what is right, until such time as he is chastened and learns
good sense."

“That is plain, ” said Aglaophon.

23.11 “In that case imprisonment is not accessory to wrongdoing. ”

“Evidently not.”

“Instead, it teaches good sense and makes men better. It is the prophylac-
tic of the soul, harsh and bitter but medicinal"

“Plainly so,” he said.

23.12 “Well then? Come, let’s examine the consequences once more.
Didn’t you grant that the body is the prison of the soul because of its trans-
gression?"

“I did and I do,” he said.

23.13 “But that the soul sins with the body — if you think that adultery,
murder and impiety, which the soul commits with the body, are sin?”

He nodded.

23.14 “But we have agreed that a prisoner cannot commit crimes?"

"We have, ” he said.

“He is prevented from committing them because he is loaded with
chains?”

“Yes.”

“And the flesh is the soul’s prison?”

He nodded.

23.15 “And yet we sin while we are in the flesh, with the consent of the
flesh?"

“We do, ” he said.

23.16 “But a prisoner in bonds can’t sin?” Here, too, he nodded.

“For he is restrained?"

‘Yes.”

“His bonds don’t permit him to sin?”

“Obviously not.”

23.17 “But the body is an aid to sin?"

Yes.”

‘While the prison prevents it?" He agreed.

23.18 “Then, Aglaophon," I said, “the body is not a prison on your prem-
ises or anyone else’s. It is the soul’s aid either way, for good or evil.”

He agreed

ORIGEN

157

24,1 “Then, Aglaophon, if this is the case, defend your first proposition.
You said previously that the body is the prison, dungeon and bond of the
soul. And do you see that what you said does not agree with what we are say-
ing now? ( 2 ) How could it, my friend, if, on the one hand, we must suppose
that the flesh is a prison, but on the other, that the soul has it as its partner
in crime and its fellow prisoner? This isn’t possible. ( 3 ) If the body was given
to the soul as a place of torment because of sin, so that the soul in pain may
be taught to honor God, how can the body be the soul’s accomplice and part-
ner in crime? Imprisonment, confinement, chains, and, in a word, all such
corrective punitive devices are inhibitors of crime and sin for the prisoners.
( 4 ) Prison is not prescribed for the wrongdoer as an aid in wrongdoing, so
that he will do further wrong, but so that, tortured by his chains, he will stop.
It is for this reason that judges put malefactors in chains. ( 5 ) Even against
their will they are kept from evildoing by their shackles; evil is an option, not
for prisoners but for free men who live unguarded.

24,6 “Man first committed murder like Cain, progressed to unbelief, gave
heed to idols, abandoned God. And why was the body given to him for a
prison? Or, after man had transgressed before he had a body, why would
God give him the body as an aid to greater wickedness? ( 7 ) Why does God
say, 'Lo, I have set before thee life and death; choose life! I have set before thee
good and evil; choose good l ' 79 after the making of the prison, and ‘If ye be
willing and hearken unto me ?’ so These things were said to a person free to
choose, not a prisoner under restraint.

24,8 “On all grounds, then, it is established that < we must > not regard
the body as a chain, imprisonment or incarceration, or souls as therefore
‘prisoners of earth , 81 with God condemning them to be bound in chains of
clay. ( 9 ) How can this be, when there is no proof of it? But it is also plainly
absurd to suppose that the body will not accompany the soul in eternal life
because it is a prison and a bond, to prevent our becoming prisoners forever,
as they say, sentenced to corruption in the kingdom of light. ( 10 ) For once
the assertion in which they declared the flesh to be the ‘prison of the soul’
has been refuted and discredited, the statement, ‘The flesh will not rise lest
we become prisoners in the kingdom of light’ — and may this kingdom be
ours! — is discredited as well.

79 Deut 30:15.

80 Isa 1:19.

81 Cf. Lam 3:34.

158

ORIGEN

25.1 “Well, what other truth must I show to convince the captious, clearer
than what has been said so that they will find it acceptable? One could
refute this contention of theirs both by these arguments and by many more.
(2) I shall prove in what follows, in the course of the discussion, with real
truths and not with conjectures, that Jeremiah did not call us ‘prisoners of
earth’ because of our partnership with the body, nor did David called us
‘bound’ for this reason. (3) As to the skin tunics and the fact that our first
parents had bodies before the tunics were made and still enjoyed immortal-
ity, and further, that the body cannot be regarded as a prison and dungeon,
I have made the appropriate remarks, gentlemen of the jury. ( For I sum-
mon you to be the judges of my argument, ‘most excellent Theophilus.j 82 As
I promised I turn now to the sequel, to give us a clearer view of the things we
would like to see. ”

26.1 God, the creator of all, brought all into being in good order like a
great city, and regulated it by his decree. Each element had been joined in
harmony by his will, and all had been filled with various living things, so that
the world would grow to perfect beauty. He therefore gave life to all sorts
of forms — stars in the sky, birds in the air, beasts on earth and fish in the
water — and finally, after preparing the universe as a wonderfully beautiful
home for him, God brought man into the world (2) as a likeness answering
to his own image. He made him with his own hands like a glorious image in
a noble temple.

26,3 For it is understood that whatever God fashioned with his own hand
must be immortal, being the work of immortality. (4) Immortal things are
made immortal by immortality, as evil things are made evil by evil and
unrighteous things unrighteous by unrighteousness. For unrighteous deeds
are not the work of righteousness, but of unrighteousness. Nor, on the contrary,
is righteous behavior the work of unrighteousness but of righteousness— just
as corrupting is not the work of incorruption either but of corruption, and
immortality not the work of corruption but of incorruption.

26,5 And in a word, whatever the maker is Like, the product must neces-
sarily be made Like, on the same principle. (6) But God is immortality, life
and incorruption, and man is the work of God. Anything made by immortal-
ity is immortal; man is therefore immortal This is why God created man in
person, but ordered earth, air and water to bring forth the other kinds of
living things.

82 Luke 1:3.

ORIGEN

159

26.7 Man has been truly said to be neither a soul without a body by
nature, nor a body without a soul, but that which, by the union of soul and
body, has been compounded into the one form, that of the good. Hence it is
plain that man was made immortal, free of decay and diseases.

26.8 One may also learn this well enough from the scripture. Of the other
creatures which are changed at intervals of time by being young and grow-
ing old, it is said, “Let the waters bring forth creeping things ” 83 and “Let the
earth bring forth living souls according to their kind, four-footed creatures
and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind .” 84 (9)
But “Let the earth bring forth" is no longer said of man as it was of them, nor
“Let the waters bring forth, ” nor “Let there be lights. " 85 Instead [we read] “Let
us make man in our image and after our likeness, and let them have domin-
ion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over all cattle ,’’ 86
and “God took dust from the earth and formed man. ” 87

27,1 Now then, so that you too may further understand the difference
< in > whole and in part between man and the other creatures, and how man
ranks next to the angels in honor because of his immortality, let us take this
question up in turn in accordance with the true and orthodox reasoning.
(2) Animation and life were given to the others by their inhalation of the
wind in the air, but to man by the immortal and all-excelling essence itself,
for “God breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became
a living soul 88 (3) The others were commanded to serve and be ruled, but
man to rule and be the master. The others are given various natural shapes
and forms, as many as their tangible, visible nature engendered at God’s
bidding. (4) Man, however, is given God’s image and likeness, and entirely
conformed to the original image of the Father and the Only-begotten. “For
God created man; in the image of God created he him. ” 89

27,5 Thus, as sculptors are concerned for their images, God was concerned
for the preservation of his own image, lest it be easily destroyed. (6) Sculp-
tors not only think of < the > beauty and loveliness of their pieces, to make
them wonderfully beautiful, but also plan for their immortality as far as they
can, so that they will be preserved for a long while without being broken. So

83 Gen 1:20.

84 Gen 1:24.

85 Gen 1:14.

86 Gen 1:26.

87 Gen 2:7.

88 Gen 2:7.

89 Gen 1:26.

i6o

ORIGEN

with. Phidias. (7) After he had finished the Pisaean image — it was made of
ivory — he had oil poured in front of the image around its feet, to keep it as
nearly immortal as possible. (8) Now if this is so with the makers of human
handiwork, did not the supreme craftsman, God, who can do all things and
even create from nothing, of every necessity see to it that man, his own ratio-
nal image, was wholly indestructible and immortal? Did he allow what he
had seen fit to make in a distinctive way, and had fashioned with his own
hands, in his image and after his likeness, to be most shamefully destroyed
and consigned to ruin and corruption — the ornament of the world, for the
sake of which the world was made? This cannot be said! Away with anyone
so foolish, as to think it!

28.1 But probably, Aglaophon, you people will not back off because of
what has now been said, and will reply, “If the creature was immortal from
the beginning, as you say, how has he become mortal? An immortal thing
must remain unalterably what it is, without changing or degenerating into
something inferior and mortal. This cannot be, since < it is not possible* > for
an immortal < thing to come to die. ”* >

28.2 [But it did], I shall say, because the enemy of all good came, and
from envy bewitched the man who had been created with the authority to
choose the good, and had received this ordinance. (3) “For God created man
for immortality and made him an image of his own eternity . 90 Indeed, “God
made not death, nor doth he rejoice in the destruction of the living ” 91 “but
through envy of the devil death entered the world ,” 92 as Wisdom testified
through Solomon.

28.4 “Where did death come from, then?” If God did not make death, this
has to be asked again. “If it came from envy, why was envy stronger than
God’s purpose?” But this last is blasphemy, we shall say.

28.5 “Where did envy come from, then?” our antagonist will say. “If
from the devil, why was the devil made? If he was made, is his maker then
responsible for the existence of evil? (6) But God is in no way responsible
for anyone’s evil. Thus the devil must be uncreated — and if uncreated, also
impassible, indestructible and in need of nothing.”

An uncreated thing must necessarily possess all these attributes, and yet
the devil is brought to nothing and chastised. Now whatever is chastised

90 Wisd Sol 2:23.

91 Wisd Sol 1:13.

92 Wisd Sol 2:24.

ORIGEN

161

undergoes change and suffers, while an uncreated thing cannot suffer. The
devil, therefore, is not uncreated but created.

28.7 But if the devil is created, and every created thing originates from
some beginning and has a creator, the devil has a creator. And is the creator
uncreated or created? But it must be understood that there is only one uncre-
ated, God. Nor can there in any conceivable way be any creator whatever
other than he. “I am the first and I am the last," he says, “and besides me
there is no God .” 93

28.8 Nor can anything be changed or created contrary to God’s will. Even
the Son acknowledges that “He can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father do. What things soever the Father doeth, ” he says, “the Son doeth
likewise .” 94 (9) Surely God can have no antagonist, opponent or rival god.
If anything were to oppose God it would cease to exist, for its being would be
destroyed by God’s power and might. For only the Maker can destroy — even
the things that are immortal.

29,1 “Then what is the devil?" you will say. A spirit assigned to matter, as
Athenagoras has also said . 95 He was created by God like the other angels,
and entrusted with the oversight of matter and material forms. (2) For this
was the origin of the angels — their creation by God for the care of his created
order. Thus God would have the general and universal care of the universe,
having attached the supreme authority and power over all to himself and
guiding the whole on a straight course, like a ship, with the rudder of his
wisdom; but angels who have been assigned to it would have the care of the
various parts.

2g,3 The other angels kept to the tasks for which God had made and
appointed them, but the devil mocked at his and became evil in the manage-
ment of the things which had been entrusted to him. He conceived envy of us,
like the angels who later became enamored of flesh and consorted with the
daughters of men for pleasure. (4) For as in man’s case, so to the angels God
has allotted a will free to choose good or evil, either to obey his command, be
with him and enjoy beatitude, or else to disobey and be judged.

2g,5 The devil too was a “morning star” — “How hath the morning star
fallen from heaven, that riseth in the morning !” 96 He once rose with the
angels of Light, once was a morning star, but he fell, was dashed to the earth,
and is [now] the governor of the forces hostile to man. For the Godhead is

93 Isa 44:6.

94 John 5:19.

95 Athenagoras Legatio 24.2.

96 Isa 14:12.

162

ORIGEN

angry with the proud and balks their arrogant purposes. ( 6 ) But it occurs to
me to say in verse,

Thou serpent, source and end of ills for all,

Thou bearer of a grievous store of woes,

Thou false guide of a blind world’s ignorance,

That joyest in the wails and groans of men!

‘Twas thou that armed the fratricidal arms

Of kin to deeds of lawless violence.

By thy contriving Cain first fouled the soil

With secret bloodshed, and the first-formed man

Fell to the earth from realms unblemished.

30.1 That is what the devil is. But death was devised for the sake of con-
version, just as blows were devised for the correction of children beginning
to read. For death is nothing but the severance and separation of soul from
body.

30.2 “What, then,” you will say, “is God the cause of death?” Again the
same answer comes to me, “No indeed! Neither are teachers primarily
responsible for children’s being hurt by the blows. ( 3 ) Death is a good thing,
then, if, like blows for children, it was devised for conversion. A word to the
wise — [I do not mean] the death of sin, but the death of the sundering and
separation of the flesh [from the soul].”

30,4 The man was responsible for himself and his own master, and as I
said, had received a free will and the liberty to choose the good. And he had
been told, “From every tree in the garden ye may eat, but from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evilye may not eat thereof. For in the day wherein ye
eat of it, ye shall surely die .” 97 ( 5 ) But once he had given in with regard to
eating of it to the devil, who was inciting his entrapped wisdom to all sorts
of disobedience, he set God’s command aside. And this became a stumbling
block, snare and hindrance for him.

25.6 For God did not make evil, and is absolutely not responsible, in any
way at all, for any evil But when any creature which God has created free to
observe and keep the law he has justly enjoined, fails to keep that law, that
creature is called evil. And to disobey God, by overstepping the bounds of
righteousness of one’s own free will, is the most serious harm.

25.7 Thus, because the man was spotted and sullied by his rejection of
God’s decree, and was smeared with the stains of the great evils the prince
of darkness and father of deceit had brought forth — and because, as the

97 Gen 2:16-17.

ORIGEN

163

scripture says, he was sentenced to hard labor so that the devil could keep
deceiving him and inciting him to unrighteousness — God the almighty, see-
ing that, as the devil was a deceiver, man had been made an immortal evil
by the devil’s plot, ( 8 ) made the skin tunics, as though to clothe the man with
mortality, so that all the evil which had been engendered in him would die
with the destruction of his body.

31,1 These questions have already been raised, and it has been shown
that the skin tunics were not Adam’s and Eve’s bodies. Still, let us explain
it once more — it is not a thing to be said only once. ( 2 ) The first man him-
self acknowledged that he had bones and flesh before the tunics were made,
when he saw the woman brought to him and cried, “This is now bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called, Wife, for she was taken out
of her husband. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and
cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh .” 98

31,3 For I have no intention of putting up with certain chatterboxes who
do violence to the scripture without a blush, suggest that they were “intelligi-
ble bones” and “intelligible flesh, ” and turn things topsy-turvy with allegories
in one passage after another, as their excuse for saying that the resurrection
is not a resurrection of flesh. ( 4 ) This though Christ confirms the fact that the
scripture should be taken as written, when he answers the Pharisees’ ques-
tion about the divorce of a wife with “Flaveye not read that in the beginning
the creator made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a
man leave his father and mother ,” 99 and so forth? How can “Be fruitful and
fill the earth ?” 100 be taken merely of souls? Or ( 5 ) “God took dust from the
earth and formed the man ” 101 which is plainly said of the body proper? The
soul was not made of earth and the heavier materials. ( 6 ) Thus it is estab-
lished with full certainty that the man was provided with a body before the
skin tunics were made. For all these things are said before his fall, but the
making of the tunics is described after the fall.

31,7 Let us thus return to the investigation of the matter in hand, since we
have given sufficient proof that the skin tunics were not [Adam’s and Eve’s ]
bodies, but the mortality which was made for beasts because of the beasts’
want of reason — for only this explanation remains. ( 8 ) Rest assured, the man
was exiled from Paradise for the following reason. God did not expel him
because he did not want him to pick fruit from the tree of life and live— for he

98 Gen 2:23-24.

99 Matt 19:4-5.

100 Gen 1:28.

101 Gen 2:7.

164

ORIGEN

could, have lived forever if he had eaten once more, [a fruit] from [the tree] of
life. God did this, as we have stated, to keep evil from becoming immortal.

31,9 For if it was at all God’s will that man die altogether without tast-
ing life, why did God sent Christ from heaven to earth? (10) If my opponent
should say that God did this because he had changed his mind, his argu-
ment would be feeble because it introduced a changeable God. But God is
neither ignorant of the future nor malignant; indeed, he is supremely good,
and foreknows that which is to come. (11) Thus God did not expel the man
to prevent his eating from the tree of life and living forever, but so that sin
would be killed first, by death. Then, with sin withered away after death, the
man would arise cleansed and taste of life.

32.1 And no idiot should gamble that these things are meant in some
other sense. For whoever decides that this flesh is incapable of immortality
is indeed responsible for the ailment of his stupidity, and is a blasphemer.
(2) If it were simply impossible for man to live forever without a body, why is
Adam cast out after the making of the skin tunics, and kept from eating of
the tree of life and living? (3) The prohibition is predicated on the assump-
tion that, if he takes fruit from the tree of life and tastes it, he can avoid
death. For scripture says, “And the Lord God made tunics of skin for Adam
and his wife, and clothed them. And God said, Behold, Adam hath become
as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and
take of the tree of life and eat and live forever. And the Lord God sent him
forth from the delight of Paradise to till the ground whence he was taken,
and he cast Adam out .” 102

32,4 Thus the body could have lived forever and been immortal if it had
not been prevented from tasting life. But it was prevented so that sin would
be put to death with the body and die, but the body would rise washed clean
of sin. (5) As I said, God made the body mortal by clothing it with mortal-
ity to keep man from being an immortal evil with the conquering sin alive
in him forever — as it would be if it had sprouted in an immortal body and
had immortal nourishment. (6) Hence the skin tunics — so that, through the
body’s destruction and its separation [ from the soul], the sin underneath it
would perish entirely, from the root up, leaving not even the smallest bit of
root for new shoots of sins to sprout from again.

33.1 If a fig tree < has > taken root and grown tall and broad in the beau-
tiful buildings of a temple, and has covered all the joints of the stones with
intricate roots, its growth cannot be halted until it is uprooted altogether,

102 Gen 3:21-24.

ORIGEN

165

and the stones in the places where It sprouted are destroyed. ( 2 ) For the
stones can be set back in the same places once the fig tree is removed, so
that the temple will be preserved and no longer harbor any of the ills that
were destroying it. But as the fig tree has been uprooted altogether, it will
die. ( 3 ) Thus, with the temporary visitations of death, God, the architect,
destroyed his temple, man, who had sprouted sin like a wild fig — “killing
and making alive ,” 103 as the scripture says — so that, once the sin had
withered and died, the flesh would rise again from the same places like a
temple restored, immortal and unharmed because the sin had perished alto-
gether from the ground up.

33,4 While the body is still alive before death, sin of necessity lives within
us and conceals its roots within us, even though it is checked on the out-
side by the cuts of cautions and admonitions. For after his enlightenment no
one can do further wrong; sin has simply been removed from us altogether.
( 5 ) However, we often find ourselves in sins even after coming to faith and
the water of purification. For no one will boast that he is so free of sin that
he never even thinks of wrong at all.

33,6 Thus, as matters stand, sin is reduced and lulled to sleep by faith,
and cannot bear harmful fruit; but it has certainly not been destroyed roots
and all. ( 7 ) Here we remove its flowerings — evil thoughts, for example — “lest
any root of bitterness trouble us," W4 and we do not let them open, opening
their closed pores to suckers. For like an ax the word chops sin’s roots off as
they grow below. Then, however, even the thought of evil will be done away.

34,1 Nor does the text of scripture fail to witness to this, for those who
sincerely desire to hear the truth. The apostle knows that the root of sin is
still not entirely removed from men, and declares, “I know that in me, that is,
in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to
perform what is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not; but the
evil which I would not, that do I. If, then, I do that which I would not, it is no
more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. ” 105 ( 2 ) And 7 delight in the law
of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. ” 106

34,3 Thus sin has not yet been entirely dug out by the roots, but is alive.
(For it is not wholly dead; how can it be, before the man is clothed with death?)

103 Deut 32:39.

104 Heb 12:15.

105 Rom 7:18-20.

106 Rom 7:22-23.

i66

ORIGEN

[It is alive], to wither and fade with the man, and to be utterly destroyed and
perish — like a plant, when < the stone > is destroyed in < the place > where,
as I said, it preserved its roots by concealing them. But the man will rise
again, with no further “root of bitterness " 107 lurking within him.

34.4 For death and destruction were employed as an antidote by our true
protector and physician, God, for the uprooting of sin. Otherwise evil would
be eternal in us, like an immortal thing growing in immortals, and we our-
selves would live like the diseased for a a long time, maimed and deprived of
our native virtue, as persons who harbor the severe diseases of sin in everlast-
ing and immortal bodies. (5) It is a good thing then, that God has devised
death — this cure, like a medicinal purgative, of both soul and body — to
leave us altogether spotless and unharmed.

35,1 Now then, since a number of illustrations of such matters are
needed, let us by all means look for them, and not leave off until our argu-
ment ends with a clearer explanation and proof. (2) It is plainly just as
though the best of artists were to remelt a lovely likeness he had made of
gold or another material with all its limbs in proportion for beauty’s sake,
because he suddenly realized that it had been mutilated by some vicious
person, who injured the piece because, from malice, he could not bear that
it be beautiful, and reaped the empty fruit of envy. (3) With your great wis-
dom, Aglaophon, observe that if the artist did not want the piece he had
created with so much zeal and care to be completely ruined and an eyesore,
he would be well advised to melt it down again and make it as it was before.
(4) If he did not remelt and refashion it, however, but < merely > patched
and repaired it and left it as it is, the piece, which was hardened in the fire
and cast in bronze, could never be kept the same, but would be altered, and
diminished in value.

35.5 Thus if he wanted his work to be entirely good and flawless, he must
break it up and recast it, so that the flaws, and all the alterations produced in
it by treachery and envy, would be done away by its destruction and recast-
ing, but the sculpture restored undamaged and unblemished to its own form,
once more exactly like itself. (6) For even if it is dissolved back into its raw
material, in the hands of the same artist the statue cannot be destroyed, but
can be restored. Its blemishes and mutilations can be destroyed, however, for
they are melted. They cannot be restored, for in every art the best craftsman
looks, not to the ugliness of his work or its accidental flaws, but to its sym-
metry and tightness.

107 Heb 12:15.

ORIGEN

167

35,7 For it seems to me that God has dealt with us in the same way. He
saw his handsomest work, man, spoiled by the malicious plots of envy, and
in his loving kindness could not bear to leave him like that, or he would be
flawed forever and marred with an immortal blemish. He has reduced him
to his raw material again, so that all his flaws may be melted and done away
with by the refashioning. ( 8 ) For the remelting of the sculpture in my meta-
phor stands for the death and dissolution of the body; and the remodeling
and reshaping of the material stands for the resurrection. ( 9 ) The prophet
Jeremiah himself has already made the same recommendation in the fol-
lowing passage: “And I went down to the house of the potter, and lo, he was
making a work upon the stones. And the vessel he was making broke in his
hands, and again he made it another vessel, as it pleased him to do. And the
word of the Lord came unto me saying, Can I not make you as this potter, 0
house of Israel? Behold, as the potter’s clay are ye in my hands ." 108

36,1 Observe that, after the man’s transgression, the great hand of God
did not choose to abandon its work forever, like a counterfeit coin, to the evil
one who had unjustly harmed it by reason of his envy. Instead it melted and
reduced it to clay once more, like a potter reshaping a vessel to remove all
its flaws and cracks by the reshaping, but make it once again entirely flaw-
less and acceptable. ( 2 ) “Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor ”- 109 in
other words— for I am sure that this is what the apostle means — does God
not have the power to reshape and refashion each of us from the same raw
material and raise us each individually, to our honor and glory or to our
shame and condemnation? To the shame of those who have lived wickedly
in sins, but to the honor of those who have lived in righteousness. ( 3 ) This
was revealed to Daniel also, who says, “And many of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall arise, some to eternal life, some to shame and ever-
lasting contempt. And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament. ” 110

36,4 It is not in our power to remove the root of wickedness entirely, but to
prevent it from spreading and bearing fruit. Its full and complete destruction,
roots and all, is accomplished by God, as I said, at the dissolution of the body;
but its partial destruction, so that it will not bud, is accomplished by our-
selves. ( 5 ) And thus whoever fosters the increase and growth of wickedness

108 Jer 18:3-6.

109 Rom 9:21.

110 Dan 12:2-3.

i68

ORIGEN

Instead, but does not make It as barren as he can and reduce its size, must
pay the penalty. For though he had the ability and the right to do this, he
chose to prefer the harmful to the helpful.

37.1 Thus no one, with wagging tongue, may blame the Godhead for not
giving each his just reward for vice or virtue; the man himself is at fault.
“Who art thou, 0 man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say
to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” 111 ( 2 ) How can it?
The man chose evil of his own free will! He may not ask the God who judges
< with > unvaryingly righteous decrees, Why hast thou made me to be thus
condemned to torment?”

37,3 For note how, by deftly darting brief quotations, like a spearman,
into the body of his words, Paul makes the interpretation of the readings
unclear and extremely difficult, although they are entirely true and orthodox
and contain nothing careless or evil. 112 ( 4 ) To those who look into the
words with no zeal but mean-spiritedly, they sometimes seem disjointed and
inconsistent; but to those who do this zealously and with sober reason, they
are correspondingly full of order and truth. ( 5 ) Only a treatise in itself would
be enough for a full and accurate discussion of this at this time. Indeed, it
would be ridiculous to abandon your inquiry which has led me to compose
this, and shift to other subjects.

37,6 For I have said this because of the justice which punishes willful
evildoers. But now that we have made it abundantly clear that death was
not devised for man’s harm but < for his good*>, whoever opens this book
with a good will must have an understanding of the resurrection of the body.

( 7 ) 113 How can death not be beneficial, when it destroys the things that prey
upon our nature? Even though it is unpleasant at the time, while it is being
administered, it < is > plainly a medicine, of a very bitter sort, for the patient.

( 8 ) But now then! Not to make the same points time and again about the
same things, let us further confirm what we have said from the Song in Deu-
teronomy, and then go on to take up the rest.

38.1 For what does God’s “I shall kill, and I shall make alive; I shall smite
and I shall heal, and there is none that shall deliver out of my hand,’’ 114
mean to teach but that the body is first killed and dies, so that it may rise
and live again? ( 2 ) It is struck and shattered first, so that it may be remade

111 Rom 9:20; Isa 29:16.

112 The quotation Methodius means is that of Isa 29:16 at Rom 9:20. The subject he
declines to discuss is presumably that of predestination.

113 The next two paragraphs are renumbered to correct a numbering error in Holl.

114 Deut 32:19.

ORIGEN

169

sound and whole. (3) And nothing has any power whatever to take it from
God’s great and mighty hand for ruin and destruction — not fire, not death,
not darkness, not chaos, not corruption. (4) “Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ?” says scripture — {“Christ” means the Father’s Hand and
Word.) “Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or naked-
ness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake are we killed all day
long; we are counted as sheep appointed to be slain. Nay, in all these things
we are more than conquerors through him that loved us .” u5

38,5 Absolutely true! This serves as the fulfillment of “I shall kill, and I
shall make alive" — as I said — “I shall smite and I shall heal “And there is
no one to “take us, ’’for our destruction, “from the love of God that is in Christ
Jesus.” Thus we are “reckoned as sheep for the slaughter," “to die to sin and
live to God .” 116 So much for this line of inquiry; here, once again, we must
take up the next question.

39.1 Suppose that, as my opponent proposes, every procreated thing is ill
in its origin and diet— for it increases in size from what is added to it, and
becomes smaller because of what is subtracted from it. But whatever is not
procreated is in good health, since it is not ill and has no needs or desires.
Procreated things, however, desire both sex and food, but to have desires is
illness, while to have no needs or desires is health. And procreated things
are ill because they have desires, while things not procreated are not ill. And
things that are ill suffer from a surplus or deficiency of the things which are
added to them or taken away from them. Now anything that suffers both
withers and perishes, since it is procreated. But man is procreated. Therefore
man cannot be impassible and immortal.

39.2 But even as stated, the argument fails. If everything must perish if it
is either brought into being or procreated — we may as well say it this way,
because the first man and woman were not procreated, but were brought
into being, but both angels and souls are brought into being for the scripture
says, “He maketh his angels spirits” 117 — then, on their premises, angels and
souls must perish! (3) But neither angels nor souls perish; they are immortal
and indestructible as their maker intends them to be. Man too, therefore, is
immortal.

39,4 No more satisfactory is the argument that all things will be destroyed
completely and there will be no more earth, air and heaven. The whole world

115 Rom 8:35-37.

116 Rom 6:10.

117 Ps 103:4.

ORIGEN

170

will be overwhelmed with a deluge of fire, and burned to ashes for its puri-
fication and renewal, but will certainly not come to entire destruction and
dissolution. ( 5 ) If the non-existence of the world is better than its existence,
why did God make the poorer choice and create the world’? But God made
nothing to no purpose or inferior. ( 6 ) Thus God ordered the creation in such
a way that it would exist and endure, as Wisdom proves by saying, “God hath
created all things to exist, and sound are the origins of the world; in them
is no poison of destruction .” 118 ( 7 ) And Paul plainly testifies to this with his
words, “The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation
of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because creation
itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of destruction to the glorious
liberty of the children of God. ” u9 ( 8 ) Here he chooses to call this world a
“creature, ” and says that “the creature was made subject to vanity, ” but that
it expects to be set free from such bondage. For it is not the invisible things
that are enslaved to corruption, but these, the visible ones.

39,9 The “creature,” then, endures, renewed once more and in a come-
lier form, and is joyous and glad for the sons of God at the resurrection,
though now it groans for them and shares their travail, while it too awaits
our redemption from the perishability of the body. ( 10 ) Then, when we are
raised and have shaken off the mortality of our flesh — as scripture says,
“Shake off the dust, rise and sit down, 0 Jerusalem" 120 — and when we are
set free from sin, it too will be set free from corruption and no longer enslaved
to “vanity,” but to righteousness. ( 11 ) “For we know,” says scripture, “that all
creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now. And not only
they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we our-
selves groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption
of the body. ” 121

39,12 And Isaiah says, “For as the new heavens and the new earth which
I make remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name
be. ” 122 And again, “Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, this God
that formed the earth and made it. He established its bounds, he created it
not in vain, but to be inhabited. ” 123 ( 13 ) Indeed God has not created the world

118 Wisd Sol 1:14.

119 Rom 8:19-20.

120 Isa 52:2.

121 Rom 8:22-23.

122 Isa 66:22.

123 Isa 45:18.

ORIGEN

171

to no purpose or in vain, for destruction, as those who think vain thoughts
would have it. He has made it to be, to be inhabited and to abide. There-
fore heaven and earth must once more be, after the burning up and boiling
away of all things. ( 14 ) To explain the necessity of this would require an even
longer discussion. For after its dissolution the universe will not be reduced
to inert matter, and its state before its establishment. Nor, again, will it be
reduced to total destruction and decay.

40.1 But suppose our opponents say, “If the universe will not be destroyed,
why did the Lord say that heaven and earth would pass away? And why did
the prophet say that the heaven would perish like smoke, and the earth grow
old like a garment ’?” 124

40.2 “Because," we shall reply, “scripture’s way is to call the world’s
change from its present state to a better and more glorious one a ‘destruc-
tion,’ like the change of anything to a more glorious form when its previous
form is done away with; there is no contradiction or anomaly in the sacred
scripture. ( 3 ) ‘The form of this world passeth away ,’ 125 but the world does
not. Thus scripture’s way is to call the change of a previous form to a bet-
ter, and sometimes a lovelier one, a ‘destruction, ’ ( 4 ) as one might call the
change from one’s form in babyhood to maturity a ‘destruction’ because the
stature of the infant is changed in its size and handsomeness. “For when I
was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child;
but when I became a man, I put away childish things .” 125

40,5 We would expect the creature to be troubled because it is to die in
the conflagration and be created anew, but we would not expect it to per-
ish. Thus we, the newly created, shall dwell free from sorrow in the newly
created world — as the hundred and third Psalm says, “Thou shalt send
forth thy Spirit and they shall be made, and thou shalt renew the face of the
earth” 127 — with God at last, the regulator of its mild climate, surrounding it.
( 6 ) For if there is to be an earth even after this age, there is every necessity
that it also have inhabitants, who will never again die, marry and be born,
but like the angels will unchangingly perform the best of works in immortal-
ity. ( 7 ) Thus it is silly to ask how bodies can exist then where there will be no
air or earth or the rest.

41,1 But if we are to discuss such important matters with confidence,
Aglaophon, something beyond what we have said is worth our looking into,

124 Ps 101:27.

125 1 Cor 7:13.

126 1 Cor 13:11.

127 Ps 103:30.

172

ORIGEN

since it occasions a great deal of error. ( 2 ) After you said that, when the
Sadducees tested him, the Lord declared that those who attain the resurrec-
tion will be like angels, you added, “But the angels, who have no flesh, are in
the highest state of beatitude, and therefore also of glory. Thus if we are to
equal the angels, we, like them, must be without flesh. ” ( 3 ) But, Sir, you have
not understood that He who created the universe from nothing and set it in
order, did not adorn it by allotting the nature of immortals to angels and
ministers only, but to principalities, authorities and thrones as well. ( 4 ) The
angels are one species and the principalities and authorities are another,
for there is not [just] one rank, condition, tribe and family of immortals, but
different species, tribes and varieties. The cherubim cannot relinquish their
own nature and be changed into the form of angels; nor, in turn, can angels
be changed into some other form. They must be the same as they are and
have been.

41,5 But man too, who was charged <at> the first ordering of the uni-
verse to inhabit the world and rule all its denizens — man is immortal and
will never be changed from his manhood into the form of the angels or any
of the others. For no more can the angels be changed from their original
form and turned into that of the others. ( 6 ) Christ did not come to announce
the remaking or transformation of human nature into some other, but its
change into its original nature before its fall, when it was immortal. ( 7 ) Each
created thing must remain in its own assigned place, so that all may be filled
with all: the heavens with angels; the thrones with powers; the luminaries
with ministering spirits; the most sacred places and the pure and undefiled
lights, with the seraphim who stand beside the great Will which controls the
universe; and the world with men. ( 8 ) But if we grant that men are changed
into angels, it is time to say that the angels can also be changed into powers,
and the powers into one thing and another, until the ascending list incurs
risk . 128

42,1 But it is not as though God made man inferior or slipped up in the
process of fashioning him, and like the poorest of workmen later changed
his mind and decided to make him an angel; or that he meant to make an
angel at first and could not, but made a man. This is incompetence. ( 2 ) If he
wanted the man to become an angel and not a man, why ever did he make
him a man and not an angel? Because he couldn’t? < This > is blasphemy!
( 3 ) But did he put off doing the better thing and do the worse? This too is
absurd. God neither makes mistakes nor puts off doing a good thing, nor

128 I.e., reaches the point of suggesting that something may become God.

ORIGEN

173

Lacks the power [to do it]. He has the power to do both as he wills and when
he wills, for God is Power.

42.4 Very well, God created the man at the first and willed that he be a
man. But if he willed it, and he wills what is good — and if man is good —
and if man is said to be composed of soul and body — then man will not be
bodiless [at the resurrection] but embodied, or man will be other than man.
( 5 ) For the immortal species must all be preserved by God. But man too is
immortal, for Wisdom says, “God created man for immortality, and made
him by his own eternity .” 129 The body does not perish, then, for man is body
and soul.

43,1 Understand, then, that the Lord meant to teach these very things,
because the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. This
is Sadducean doctrine, and so, to decry the doctrine of the resurrection of
the flesh, they made up the parable of the woman and the seven brothers,
and came to him. (The evangelist, of course, added “came to him” himself,
when he said, “Likewise Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection,
came to him .”) 1 ' 30 ( 2 ) Now if there were no resurrection of flesh but only the
soul were saved, Christ would have agreed that their opinion was good and
right. But he refutes them instead by saying, “In the resurrection they neither
marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven 131 — ( 3 ) not by
having no flesh, but by neither marrying nor being married but finally being
immortal, and among the luminaries. They will be very like the angels in this
respect — that, like the angels in heaven, we in Paradise will not spend our
time in weddings and banquets, but in seeing God and enjoying eternal life
under Christ’s headship.

43.4 For Christ did not say, “They shall be angels,” but, “They shall be like
angels" — as [in the scriptural text], “crowned with glory and honor and but
a little different from the angels ,” 132 and nearly angels. ( 5 ) It is as though
one were to say that on a balmy, calm night when all was illuminated with
the moon’s heavenly radiance, the moon shone “like” the sun. We would cer-
tainly not say he was testifying that the moon “was” the sun, but that it was
“like" the sun, ( 6 ) just as a material which is not gold but gold< en> is not
said to be “gold,” but “like gold." If it were gold, itwould not be called “golden”
but “gold"; but since it is not gold, but is < almost > gold and looks like gold,
it is not called “gold” but "golden. ”

129 Wisd Sol 2:23.

130 Matt 22:23.

131 Matt 22:30.

132 Ps 8:6.

174

ORIGEN

43,7 Thus, when Christ says that the saints will be as angels in the resur-
rection, we do not understand him to be promising that the saints will actu-
ally be angels in the resurrection, but that they will nearly be angels. ( 8 ) And
it is the height of absurdity to deny the resurrection of bodies because Christ
declared that the saints will look like angels in the resurrection, although the
word itself clearly indicates the nature of the event.

43,9 For “rising" is not said of a thing that has not fallen, but of one that
has fallen and gets up, as the prophet says, “And I will raise up the taberna-
cle of David that is fallen. ” 133 But the beloved tabernacle of the soul has fallen
“to dusty earth , 134 for it is not the undying thing that topples over, but the
thing that dies. It is flesh that dies, for the soul is immortal. ( 10 ) Now then, if
the soul is immortal and the dead man is a body, those who say that there is
a resurrection, but not a resurrection of the flesh, are denying that there is a
resurrection. For it is not the thing that has been standing that rises, but the
thing that has fallen and dropped, as scripture says, “Doth that which falleth
not rise, or shall that which turneth away not turn back ?” 135

44,1 Now the Lord has plainly taught that the soul is immortal, both in his
own words and through the mouth of Solomon. He has taught it in his own
words in the story of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus, by showing
the one at rest in Abraham’s bosom after the discarding of his body, but the
other in torments which he described in conversation with Abraham. ( 2 ) And
he taught it through Solomon in the book entitled Wisdom, where it is written
that “The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God and there shall no
torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die and their
departure was taken for misery, and their going from us for utter destruc-
tion. But they are in peace, and their hope is full of immortality .” 136 ( 3 ) Thus
resurrection is of a body, not of a soul. One does not raise a person who is on
his feet but a person who is lying down, just as not a healthy individual, but
a sufferer is doctored.

44,4 And if anyone insists that resurrection will apply to the soul and not
the flesh, this is a lot of foolishness and nonsense. One must first prove a
corresponding decay and dissolution of the soul to prove its resurrection as
well, and not by talking nonsense but by the clear statement of a plain fact.
( 5 ) But no matter, let us allow him to declare the soul mortal. Here we must
make one of two assumptions. Either the Lord’s declaration is untrue when

133 Amos 9:11.

134 Dan 12:2.

135 Jer 8:5.

136 Wisd Sol 3:1-4.

ORIGEN

175

he teaches that the soul is immortal, and whoever says that it does not per-
ish is lying; or else it perishes, and Christ is < telling > a lie by teaching both
in his story of the rich man and the poor man and in the vision of Moses
and Elijah, that it is indestructible and immortal. ( 6 ) But the Lord has never
contradicted himself or lied. He was not showing an image or simulacrum
of Elijah and Moses on the mount with the intent of deceiving the apostles,
but showing truthfully what they were. So even the slowest learner, as we
might say, can learn that he is immortal, and affirm the indestructibility of
the soul

45.1 Resurrection, then, is a resurrection of the flesh and not of the soul,
so that the tabernacle of David which has fallen into decay may arise and,
risen and rebuilt, remain undamaged and unfallen for all eternity. ( 2 ) For
God was not concerned that David’s stone house be built to give him a fine
home in the kingdom of heaven, but that his flesh, the tabernacle of the soul,
be built, which he had fashioned with his own hands.

45,3 With your immense wisdom, Aglaophon, you must regard it in this
way. You are sure to understand it very easily if you think of the image of
going to sleep and getting up. If going to sleep results from waking and get-
ting up results from sleeping, and this is a rehearsal for death and resur-
rection — “to the twins, sleep and death!” 137 — then, since rising results from
[the sleep of] sleepers, the quickening to life of the flesh must be the result of
death. ( 4 ) For if waking issues from sleep, and the sleeper certainly does not
just go on sleeping in the same posture but gets up again, so life will issue
from death; and the man who dies surely does not remain so because he dies.
( 5 ) For if waking issues from sleep, rising from falling and rebuilding from
destruction, how can we possibly not expect the resurrection of the fallen and
the quickening of the dead?

45,6 And observe, if you will, not only from sleeping and rising but from
seeds and shoots as well, how the resurrection is proclaimed in them all. Note
how seeds are put into the ground “bare, ” 138 as the scripture says, without
any flesh, and, rendered back again mature. If seeds died and decayed, but
there were no more revival and sprouting of the seeds, why would it not be
the lot of all things to be dissolved in death?

46.1 But for now, “most excellent Theophilus ,” 139 and you other judges
of the debate, I shall forbear to say more about this. Let us take up his next

137 Iliad 16.672.

138 1 Cor 15:37.

139 Luke 1:3.

176

ORIGEN

points as well, since they are far from satisfactory. (2) For again, in my
opponent’s forced, unnatural interpretation of the prophecy in the sixty-fifth
Psalm, God takes sinners’ actual souls, and as punishment for their sins puts
them < into > the flesh as into a “snare .” 140 But rather than orthodoxy, this is
absurdity. (3) If the souls had possessed bodies before the transgression, as
I have already pointed out, why would they be stuffed into bodies later, after
their transgression, <as> into a snare? There was no time for them to sin
before they got their bodies.

46,4 It makes no sense to say one minute that the souls have sinned
because of the body, and the next that the body was made for condemnation
as a prison and a snare, because they had sinned. (5) If they sinned because
of the body, then the body was with them from the first, even before the sin.
For how could they sin because of something which was not yet in existence?
(6) But again, if the body itself is regarded as a snare, chains and a prison,
the combination [of body and soul] cannot be responsible for the sin; it must
be the soul alone. For bonds, snares and chains are made for the sinner after
his sin.

46,7 But we have agreed that the body cannot be the prison of the soul,
since the body cooperates with either sort of behavior, right or wrong, but a
prison prevents wrong behavior. (8) So as I say, one of two alternatives must
be true. Either we sinned with a body from the first, and can find no time
when we were without a body; and the body shares the responsibility for good
and evil actions with the soul. Or else we sinned when we were without a
body, and the body is not responsible for evil at all. (g) And yet the soul can-
not be mastered by irrational pleasure without a body; but our first parents
were mastered and snared by irrational pleasure. Thus even before its sin,
the soul was accompanied by a body.

46,10 As to the unthinkability of the body’s being made as a prison to
punish the transgression, leaving the soul, as our opponents say, with the
unmitigated, constant torture of carrying a corpse, I believe I have now given
a full demonstration of this with every possible proof. (11) Thus it is untenable
and unacceptable to make of the body a snare and chains, and say that God
brings the souls into the snare as punishment, after casting them down from
the third heaven for their transgressions of his commandment.

46,12 For what could one be thinking of to believe the things they have
so rashly said? And this although, despite their forced interpretation of it,
the psalm does not have this meaning. I shall quote its actual words to show

140 Ps 65:11.

ORIGEN

177

what fiction their exposition is, since they have no desire to understand the
scriptures correctly.

46,13 The psalm goes something like this: “Thou hast proved us, 0 God,
thou hast tried us like as silver is tried Thou broughtest us into the snare,
and laidest tribulations upon our back. Thou sujferedst men to ride over
our heads. We went through fire and water, and thou broughtest us out to
refreshment .” 141 (14) And they add at once, “This is said by souls which have
been cast down from the third heaven, where Paradise is, into the snare of
the body as into a contest.” For they say that "We went through fire and
water” may mean either the soul’s passage from the womb into the world,
since it has its dwelling in the midst of much fire and moisture — or else it
may mean the soul’s fall from the heavens into the world, when < it > passes
into the world through the fire, and the waters above the firmament.

46,15 I have decided to stand up to these people. Now then, Aglaophon,
answer for them yourself [and tell us] what they will say. (47,1) For in the
first place, Paradise, from which, in the person of our first ancestor, we
were expelled, is obviously a particular place on this earth, set apart for the
untroubled rest and residence of the saints. < This > is plain from the fact
that the Tigris and Euphrates, and the other rivers that issue from it, can be
seen here inundating our land with their flooding. (2) They do not pour down
in a cataract from the sky; the earth could not even sustain such a weight of
water pouring down all at once from on high.

47,3 Nor, to those who can recognize the nuances of words, is the apos-
tle suggesting that Paradise is in a third heaven. He says, “I know < such a
man > caught up to the third heaven; and I know such a man, ( whether in the
body or out of the body, God knoweth), that he was rapt away to Paradise. ” 142
(4) He is declaring that he has seen two great revelations and been taken up
visibly twice, once to the third heaven and once to Paradise. “I know such a
man caught up to the third heaven” is proof that a particular revelation was
shown him in the third heaven, when he was caught up. (5) And the next
sentence, “And I know such a man, ( whether in the body, or out of the body),
< rapt away > to Paradise,” proves that one more revelation was shown him
in Paradise.

47,6 It is jabber and rant, then, to speak of the souls’ being cast down from
the heavens, passing through the sources of fire and the waters above the
firmament, and falling into this world. (7) Besides, Adam was not expelled

141 Ps 65:10-12.

142 2 Cor 12:2-4.

178

ORIGEN

from the heavens, but from the Paradise planted in the east, in Eden. For his
transgression did not precede his embodiment, as I have shown sufficiently
already, and this body is not a snare. The transgression came after the soul’s
union with the body, for man is a composite of the two; and the fall from
Paradise took place here. (8) But he (Origen?) did not examine the passage
with any care at all, Aglaophon. He employed his skill in things which are
not without risk, and set out to interpret the psalm in accordance with the
opinions of low people, of whom I forbear to say more.

48,1 But now that I have come to the point of correcting their depravity,
I should also like to explain to them the reason for this prophecy, “Thou
hast proved us, 0 God. Thou hast tried us with fire as silver is tried ,” 143 (2)
The martyrs, during their trials, were amply tested by the assaults of their
tortures— for the most part, the prophecies are fulfilled in our faith. They
thank God that they have fought the battle out honorably and with great
courage, and say to him, “Thou hast proved us, 0 God. Thou hast tried us
with fire as silver is tried," as though God, bent on victory in the true Olym-
pics, tested them with many sufferings, enabling them to win greater glory
in his eyes.

48,3 And see how Solomon calls out in praise of martyrs, in plain agree-
ment with these words — -for the line does not go uncorroborated by the
testimony of other scriptures. “God proved them and found them worthy of
himself. As gold in the furnace he tried them and received them as an whole
burnt offering of sweet savor. And in the time of their visitation < they shall
shine >." (4) And before that he had said, “And though they are punished in
the sight of men, their hope is full of immortality. And being a little chastened
they shall be greatly rewarded .” 144

48.5 Moreover, in the hundred and twenty-third Psalm it is the martyrs
who sing “If the Lord had not been in our midst when men rose up against
us, they had swallowed us up alive. The water had drowned us, our soul had
passed through a torrent, our soul had passed through bottomless water.
Blessed be the Lord, who hath not given us for a prey unto their teeth. Our
soul was delivered as a sparrow from the snare of the fowlers. The snare is
broken and we are delivered .” 145

48.6 There are two choirs of victorious martyrs, one of the New Testament
and the other of the Old, who with one accord sing their antiphonal hymn to

143 Ps 65:10-11.

144 Wisd Sol 3:4-7.

145 Ps 123:2-7.

ORIGEN

179

God, their champion and the King of ail: “Thou hast proved us, 0 God, thou
hast tried us with fire as silver is tried. Thou broughtest us into the snare,
thou laidest crushing burdens upon our backs .” 146 Those [burdens] were the
tribunal of the heathen, or the tortures in which they were hard pressed by
crushing and burning. (7) For scripture says, “Test me, 0 Lord, and prove
me, try my reins and my heart. ” 147

48,8 Well might Abraham say, “Thou hast proved us, 0 Lord; thou hast
tried us by fire as silver is tried, ” 148 after hearing “Abraham, spare thy son, ” 149
and throwing his sword away, (g) His heart had ached for his only son,
though he honored God’s command above < his child >. After Job’s flesh had
run with filth and his friends had reproached him, and after his body was in
pain, well might Job say, “Thou hast set tribulations before us, 0 Lord, that
thou mayest try us as gold in the furnace ,” 150 on hearing God ask him from
the whirlwind, “Or thinkest thou that I have dealt with thee otherwise than
that thou mightest be found righteous ?” 151 (10) And well might the three
children in the furnace, sprinkled with dew to prevent their consumption by
the fire, say, “Thou hast proved us, 0 God, thou hast tried us with fire as the
silver is tried. We went through fire and water, and thou broughtest us out
to a place of refreshment .’’ 152

48,11 Grant, 0 almighty God, the great, the eternal, the Father of Christ,
that in thy day I too, Methodius, may pass unharmed through the fire and
the waters turned to fuel escape their onslaughts, and say, “I went through
fire and water, and thou broughtest me out to refreshment.” (12) For thy
promise to those who love thee is, “If thou passest through the water I am
with thee, and the rivers shall not overwhelm thee. If thou passest through
the fire thou shalt not be burned; flame shall not scorch thee .” 155 But so
much for the exposition of the psalm.

49,1 But further, we must examine the argument in which, like sleepers
dreaming many impostures, they declare that Paul said, “I was alive without
the Law once, ” 154 and loudly insist < that > by his life “before the command-
ment" he meant his life in the first man < in Paradise >, before the body. And

146 Ps 65:10-11.

147 Ps 25:2.

148 Ps 65:10.

149 Cf. Gen 22:11-12.

150 Cf. Ps 65:10.

151 Job 40:3.

152 Ps 65:12.

153 Isa 43:2.

154 Rom 7:9.

i8o

ORIGEN

the words he adds, “But lam fleshly, sold under sin ,” 155 confirm this. (2) For
the man could not have been ruled and mastered by evil, and sold to it for
his transgression, if he had not become fleshly; in itself, the soul is immune
to sin. And thus, after first saying “I was alive without the Law once,” Paul
acutely added, “But I am fleshly, sold under sin.”

49,3 Awe and consternation overcame the masses when they said these
things, but now that the truth has come to light it is plain, not only that
they have gone far wrong, but that they have ascended even to the height
of blasphemy. (4) By granting that the souls had lived without bodies before
the commandment, and supposing them completely immune to sin in them-
selves, they have once more demolished their own argument — or, far more,
their own selves. For they make it out that the bodies < were given > to the
souls later, as a punishment, because they had sinned before they had
bodies. And indeed they have been moved to abuse, and compare the body
with a prison and chains, and < set about* > saying other silly things.

49,5 In fact, as has been said, the precise opposite is true; before the sin
the soul must have a body. For if the soul in itself were immune to sin, it
would not sin at all before it had a body. (6) But if it sinned, it cannot in
itself be immune to sin, but must even be susceptible and prone to it. And
therefore — again — it will sin even without getting the body, just as it sinned
before it got one.

49,7 But why did it get a body at all later on, after it had sinned? Why
did it need a body? If it was for torture and pain, why does it revel with the
body instead, and behave licentiously? (8) And why does it plainly even have
the freedom to make choices in this world? For here it is in our power to
believe and not to believe, to do right and to sin, to do good and to do evil.

49,9 Moreover, how can the judgment still be on its way, in which God
rewards everyone according to his works and behavior? Why not suppose
that it is here already, if the soul’s birth and entrance into a body is its judg-
ment and retribution, whereas its death and separation from the body is its
liberation and refection? For in your view it was put into a body as judgment
and condemnation, for sinning before it had a body. (10) But my argument
has more than amply shown that it is inadmissible to regard the body as the
soul’s torture chamber and chain.

50,1 To end our discussion of this here, one would need only to show from
the scripture itself that, < even > before his transgression, the first man was
composed of body and soul I too shall go over the heads of this now, trying

155 Rom 7:14.

ORIGEN

181

< onfy*> to correct the bases of their arguments, and thus not exceed the
Length suitable for speeches.

50,2 For you can see at once, gentlemen of the jury, that as the words
which follow it indicate, the verse from Romans, “I was alive once without the
Law ,” 156 cannot apply to the life they claim the soul had before the body —
even though, because he suffers from a completely incurable childhood ail-
ment, this good physician of the texts forcibly changed the sense as he saw
fit by removing the next lines. ( 3 ) For instead of keeping bodies’ limbs next
to their natural junctures and joints, and leaving the appearance of the body
just right, as nature intended, he mutilated it, like a Scythian mercilessly
hacking an enemy’s limbs off for his destruction, by ignoring the order of
scripture.

50,4 “All right, ” they will say, “if you have proved that this is not what they
mean, why did the apostle make these declarations?”

“Because he regarded the ‘commandment’ as ‘law,’” I would reply. "(Let us
grant first that, as you suppose, he called the commandment an actual ‘law. j
But Paul did not suppose because of this that, before the commandment, our
first parents also lived without bodies; he supposed that they lived without
sin. ( 5 ) Indeed the time between their creation and the commandment, dur-
ing which they lived without sin, was short — [this time during which ] they
Lived, not without bodies but with bodies. Thus they were expelled directly
after the commandment, after a very brief youth in Paradise. ”

50,6 But suppose that someone seizes on the line which says, “When we
were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our
members, ” believes that Paul is accusing and repudiating the flesh; and sup-
pose that he brings up all the other things of this kind that Paul said, ( 7 ) such
as, “that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not
after the flesh but after the Spirit. ” 157 Or, “For they that are after the flesh do
mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of
the Spirit. For to be fleshly minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. Because the fleshly mind is enmity against God, for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither again can it be. < So then they that are in
the flesh cannot please God >. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit .” 156
( 8 ) We should ask him whether the apostle, and the persons to whom he wrote

156 Rom 7:9.

157 Rom 8:4.

158 Rom 8:5-9.

182

ORIGEN

this, had already departed this life, if he was here decrying, not life lived in
fleshly terms, but the flesh itself — or whether he was still in the flesh.

50,9 But it cannot be said that he sent this when he was not in the flesh.
Both he and the addressees were plainly in the flesh. But in that case how
can he say, “When we were in the flesh the motions of the sins that were by
the Law did work in our members,” as though neither he himself, nor the
addressees, were still in the flesh? (10) He is speaking not of the flesh itself but
of a dissolute life. It is his habit to call a person who lives such a life “fleshly,"
just as he calls one who is hardened to the beholding of the truth and the
light of the mystery, “soulish.”

50,11 For [on their premises ] they should say that neither can the soul
ever be saved! Scripture says, “The soulish man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. But he that is spiritual
judgeth all things .” 159 (12) < Thus > in that case a soulish and a spiritual
man are introduced, and the spiritual < is adjudged * > as saved while the
soulish < is adjudged* > as lost, but this does not mean that the soul perishes
and everything besides the soul is saved. So here, (I.e., at Rom. 5:8-9) when
Paul says that the fleshly, and those who are in the flesh, must perish and
cannot please God, he is not striving for the destruction of the flesh, but the
destruction of the fleshly mode of life.

50,13 And further on, when he says, “They that are in the flesh cannot
please God,” he adds at once, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if
so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. " I60 (14) And shortly after that,
“But because the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in
you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors,
not to the flesh to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die;
but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. ” 161
As we must note, he maintained that the body’s appetite for pleasures is put
to death, and not the body itself.

51,1 But if they argue, “Then why is it said that ‘The mind of the flesh is
enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
it be ?’” 162 we must reply that here too they are mistaken. (2) Paul was not
suggesting that the flesh itself cannot be subject to the law of God, but that
the “mind” of the flesh cannot be, and this is different from the flesh.

159 1 Cor 2:14-15.

160 Rom 8:8-9.

161 Rom 8:11-13.

162 Rom 8:7.

ORIGEN

183

51,3 It is as though he were to say, “The impurity in poorly refined silver
is not subject to the craftsman for manufacture as a household vessel. It can-
not be; it must be removed from the silver first, and melted out.” (4) And he
was not claiming because of this that the silver cannot be wrought into a
serviceable vessel, but that the copper in the silver, and its other impurities,
cannot be. (5) Thus when he spoke of the “mind of the flesh, ” he did not mean
that the flesh cannot be subject to the law of God, but that the “mind” that is
in the flesh cannot be — its impulse to incontinence, for example. Elsewhere
he sometimes called this the “old leaven of malice and wickedness, " 163 and
urged that it be entirely removed from us. But sometimes he called it the “law
which warreth against the law of my mind and bringeth it into captivity. ” 164

51.6 For in the first place, if he meant that the flesh itself cannot be sub-
ject to the law of God, no just judge could blame us for licentious behavior,
banditry, and all the other deeds we perform or do with the body — there is
no other way of refraining from sin — then it is not true that the body cannot
be subject to the law of God! How could the body be blamed for living up to
its own nature?

51.7 But besides, neither could the body be brought to purity or virtue, if it
were not in its nature to be subject to the good. For if the nature of the flesh is
such that it cannot be subject to the law of God, but righteousness is the law
of God, and prudence, then no one at all could ever be a virgin or continent.
( 8 ) But if there are virgins and continent persons, but continence is achieved
by the subjection of the body — there is no other way of refraining from sin —
then it is not true that the body cannot be subject to the law of God. (g) How
did John subject his body to purity? Or Peter to sanctity? And why does Paul
say, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it
in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrigh-
teousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from
the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God "? 165
And again, “For as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness
and to iniquity, unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to
righteousness unto holiness. ” 166

52,1 Thus he knew that this tabernacle can be put to rights and assent to
the good, so that the sins in it can be put to death. (2) Even with us, how can
a man be the servant of righteousness if he does not first subject his fleshly

163 1 Cor 7:8.

164 Rom 7:23.

165 Rom 6:12-13.

166 Rom 6:19.

184

ORIGEN

members so that they will obey not sin but righteousness, and Live worthily of
Christ? Sinning and refraining from sin are accomplished through the body,
and the soul employs it either as an instrument of virtue or an instrument
of wickedness.

52,3 For if “Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effem-
inate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners can inherit the kingdom of
God” 167 — (4) and if these things are accomplished by the body and derive
their strength from the body, and no one is justified without overcoming
them first — and if the one who overcomes them is the one who inclines to
prudence and faith — then the body is subject to the law of God. For prudence
is the law of God.

52,5 Thus the apostle did not say that the flesh is not subject to the good
but that the mind of the flesh is not, removing, as it were, the flesh’s desire
for immoderations, just as he removed the soul’s desire for evil (6) In his ear-
nest effort to purge even the intemperance of gluttony, teaching us that such
desires and pleasures must be utterly eliminated, (7) and shaming those who
believe that luxury and feasting are life — persons “who regard their belly as
God ,’’ 168 who < say >, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die ,” 169 and
who spend their time like greedy cattle on nothing but feeding and dining-he
said, “Meats for the belly and the belly for meats: but God will destroy both
it and them. ” 170 And then he added, “Now the body is not for fornication,
but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the
Lord, and will raise up us by his power. What? Know ye not that your bodies
are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make
them the members of an harlot? God forbid! What? Know ye not that that
which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that
a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth
against his own body. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the
Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body .” 171

53,1 Note that the apostle made these statements because the body can
< be subject > to the law of God, and can be immortal if it is kept free of

167 1 Cor 6:9.

168 Phil 3:19.

169 1 Cor 15:32.

170 1 Cor 6:13.

171 1 Cor 6:13-20.

ORIGEN

185

the fuel of intemperance, and never soiled by forbidden stimulations of the
passions. (2) For what else is “joined to an harlot ," 172 has relations with her,
becomes one flesh by the junction and union of their members, but this exter-
nal body with which all the sins of sex and passion are committed? (3) This
is why Paul said, “Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he
that commltteth fornication sinneth against his own body .” 173 (4) Vanity,
unbelief anger and hypocrisy are sins of the soul, but fornication, passion
and luxury are sins of the body. With these the soul can neither take refuge
in the truth nor the body be subject to the teachings of prudence; both will
slip away from the kingdom of Christ.

53,5 And therefore if our bodies, when kept holy, are the “temple of
the Spirit that dwelleth in us " 174 and “The Lord is in the body, ” 175 and the
members of the body are the members of Christ, the body is subject to the
divine law and “can inherit the kingdom of God .” 176 (6) For “He that raised
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit
that dwelleth in you ," 177 so that “This mortal shall put on immortality and
this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and death will be swallowed up in
victory .” 178 (7) For the apostle was not discussing some other body here on
earth, but this body which dies and is put to death, and with which fornica-
tion and other sins can be committed.

54,1 But what if they surmise that there is a difference between “body"
and “flesh" — to allow them this argument as well — and suppose that “body"
is something different and invisible, < the property > of the soul, as it were,
but “flesh” is this external, visible body? We must reply that it is not only Paul
and the prophets who understand this flesh as “body.” Others do as well,
< pagan > philosophers, who are the most particular about the accuracy of
terms. (2) If our opponents will also make a scientific investigation of this,
“flesh" is the right word — certainly not for the whole mass of our tabernacle,
but for some part of the whole, like the bones, sinews and veins. The whole,
though, is “body." And physicians, who deal with precision with the nature of
bodies, understand “body" to mean this visible body.

172 1 Cor 6:16.

173 1 Cor 6:18.

174 1 Cor 6:19.

175 Cf. 1 Cor 6:13.

176 1 Cor 6:15.

177 Rom 8:11.

178 1 Cor 15:53-54-

i86

ORIGEN

54.3 Plato too, moreover, understands “body” to mean this actual < body >.
Thus Socrates said in the Phaedo, “Do we suppose that death is anything
other than < the > soul’s departure from the body? And when the body has
begun to exist separately by itself, apart from the soul, and the soul apart
from the body, this is death. ” 179

54.4 Did not the blessed Moses — we come now to the Lord’s scriptures —
understand “body” to mean the body we see, and say in the purifications
that whoever touches something unclean “shall wash his clothes and bathe
his body in water, and be unclean until even ?” 180 (5) And what about Job?
Did he too not understand “body" to mean this thing that dies, when he said,
“My body is sullied with the rottenness of worms ?” 181 (6) Solomon too said,
“Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil, nor make its abode in a
body guilty of sin. ” 182 And in Daniel it is said of the martyrs, “The fire had no
power upon their bodies, nor was an hair of their head singed .” 188

54,7 The Lord said too, in the Gospel, “Therefore I say unto you, Take no
thought what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on. Is not the soul more than
meat, and the body than raiment ?” 184 (8) And the apostle proves that he
understands “body” to mean this body of ours when he says, “Let not sin
therefore reign in your mortal body .” 188 And again, “If the Spirit of him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the
dead shall quicken your mortal bodies .” 186 (9) And again, “If the foot shall
say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of
the body ? 181 And again, “And being not weak in faith, Abraham considered
not his own body now dead. ” 188 And again, “For we must all appear before
the judgment seat of Christ: that everyone may receive the things done in
his body according to that he hath done .” 180 (10) And again, “His letters are
weighty and powerful; but the presence of his body is weak. ” 190 And again,
“I knew a man in Christ fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot

179 Plato Phaedo 64C.

180 Lev 14:9; 47.

181 Job 7:5.

182 Wisd Sol. 1:4.

183 Dan 3:94.

184 Matt 6:25.

185 Rom 6:12.

186 Rom 8:11.

187 1 Cor 12:15.

188 Rom 4:19.

189 2 Cor 5:10.

190 2 Cor 10:10.

ORIGEN

187

teii, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell. " I91 And again, So men ought
to love their wives as their own bodies. ” 192 And again, “And the very God of
peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and
body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. " 193
54,11 But our opponents have surely realized none of this. They supposed
the apostle adrift on a stormy sea, as though his thoughts had no harbor
and anchorage, but sailed back and forth making contradictory statements,
sometimes that the flesh rises, but sometimes that it does not.

55,1 And so, to omit none of their propositions and hew < the> hydra all
to pieces, I shall return to the subject. For next, as I promised, I shall put the
other questions that they raise and show how to answer them, and prove that
our opponent has said things that are themselves in accord and agreement
with our faith in the resurrection of the flesh. (2) Let us see, then, what we
were led at the outset to say of the apostle. As we originally suggested, his
words, “I was alive without the Law once, ” 194 mean our former life in Para-
dise in our first parents — not without a body but with a body — before the
commandment. (3) For “God took the dust of the earth and fashioned the
man ” 195 before the giving of the commandment. We lived free from lust and
knew no onslaughts of the senseless desire which, with the enticing distrac-
tions of pleasures, impels us to intemperance. (4) For if one has no rule to
live by, and no control over his own reason, what life can he choose to live, to
merit just praise or blame? He must be pronounced immune to all charges,
since one cannot covet things that are not forbidden. (5) And even if he does
covet them, he will not be charged. “Covet” does not apply to things which are
accessible and at one’s command, but to accessible things which are not in
one’s power. How can one desire and itch for a thing which is not withheld
from him, and which he does not need? Thus < Paul said >, “I had not known
lust if the Law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. ” 196

55,6 But when our first parents had been told, “Of the tree of the knowl-
edge of good and evilye shall not eat, and on the day ye eat thereof, ye shall
surely die ,” 191 they conceived desire and were infected with it. For one who
“desires” does not desire the things that he has, controls and uses, but the

191 2 Cor 12:2.

192 Eph 5:28.

193 1 Thes 5:23.

194 Rom 7:9.

195 Gen 2:7.

196 Rom 7:8.

197 Gen 2:17.

i88

ORIGEN

things which are forbidden and barred to him, and which he does not have.
( 7 ) Thus Paul was right to say, “I had not known lust if the Law had not said,
Thou shalt not covet” — that is, if “Ye shall not eat thereof,” had not been said.
This is the way in which sin gained the opportunity and occasion for its entry,
to mock me and pervert me.

56,1 For once the commandment had been given, the devil got his oppor-
tunity to produce covetousness in me through the commandment, and cun-
ningly urged and provoked me to descend to the desire for the forbidden.
( 2 ) “For without a law sin is dead” 198 — that is, there was no way of com-
mitting sin when the commandment had not been given and was not yet in
existence. “I was” blamelessly “alive ” 199 before the commandment, because
I had no rule and ordinance to live by, from which it would be sinful for
me to fall away. ( 3 ) “But when the commandment came, sin revived and I
died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto
death, ” 200 because once God had given a law and specified what should and
should not be done, the devil produced covetousness in me. ( 4 ) For though
God’s counsel and the commandment he gave me were meant for life and
immortality, so that, if I obeyed the commandment and lived by it, I would
have an untroubled life of the highest eternal beatitude, flourishing forever
in immortality and joy, its result, because I transgressed it, was my death
and condemnation. ( 5 ) For the devil — whom the apostle called “sin” in this
instance because he is the artificer and originator of sin — took occasion
from the commandment, deceived me into disobedience, and after deceiving
me, killed me by bringing me under the sentence of, “In the day that ye eat
thereof ye shall surely die .” 201

56,6 “Wherefore the law is holy, and God’s commandment holy, and just,
and good ,” 202 because it was given, not to harm but to save. Let us not for
a moment suppose that God does anything useless or harmful! ( 7 ) What,
then? “Was that which was good” — the commandment I was given to be the
cause of my greatest good — “made death unto me? God forbid !” 208 God’s
commandment was not the cause of my enslavement to corruption and the
writing of the tablets of destruction. It was the devil, to make it clear that he
had made evil ready for me by means of something good, so that the inven-

198 Rom 7:9.

199 Rom 7:9.

200 Rom 7:10.

201 Gen 2:17.

202 Rom 7:12.

203 Rom 7:13.

ORIGEN

189

tor and architect of sin would become “exceeding sinful ” 204 and be exposed
as such, and the < wicked > overseer of the opposite of God’s commandment
would be distinguished from the good.

56,8 “For we know that the law is spiritual, ” 205 and can thus be the cause
of harm to no one; spiritual things have their dwellings far from senseless lust
and sin. (9) “But I am fleshly, sold under sin .” 206 That is, since I am fleshly
and placed as a free agent between good and evil, so that it is in my power to
do what I will— for scripture says, “I have set before thee life and death 207 —
then, if I have consented to disobey the spiritual law, or commandment, but
to obey the material law, or the counsel of the serpent, because of this choice
I have fallen under sin and am sold to the devil

56,10 And therefore, after laying siege to me, the evil settles, makes its
home and lives in my flesh, like a drone in a beehive which often hovers buzz-
ing around it. For because I broke the commandment, the punishment of
being sold to evil was laid on me. (11) And thus, when I think of things I want
not to do, “I allow notwhatl do.” For “I know not what I do” and “What I hate,
that do /” 208 are not to be taken of actually doing evil, but of merely thinking
of it. For unseemly thoughts often catch us off guard and cause us to imagine
things we want not to, since the soul is very much perplexed by thoughts.

57,1 For to desire wicked things or not desire them is not entirely our
choice, but we can choose whether or not to implement the desires. We can-
not prevent the thoughts from occurring to us, since they are insinuated into
us from without to test us; but we can refrain from obeying them or putting
them into practice. (2) How did the apostle do the evil he disliked the most,
and least of all do the good he liked — unless he was speaking of the pecu-
liar thoughts which, for some unknown reason, we sometimes entertain even
without intending to? (3) These must be repelled and silenced, or they will
spread and possess the farthest bounds of our souls. For while these Unger in
us, the good cannot show itself.

57,4 The apostle was right, then, to say, “That which I do, I allow not; for
what I would, that do I not, but what I hate, that do I. ” 209 We want not even
to think of things that are unseemly and infamous, for perfect good is not
merely refraining from doing such things, but even from thinking of them.

204 Rom 7:13.

205 Rom 7:14.

206 Rom 7:15.

207 Deut 30:15.

208 Rom 7:15.

209 Rom 7:15; 19.

igo

ORIGEN

(5) And yet this good which we want does not come to fruition; the evil which
we do not want, does. Countless < thoughts > on countless subjects haunt our
hearts and often enter them even against our will, filling us with curiosity
and senseless meddlesomeness. (6) And thus we are capable of wanting not
to entertain these thoughts, but < not > of banishing them, never to return to
our minds. For as I said, we do not have the power to do this, but only the
power to comply with the thoughts or not.

57.7 Thus the sense of the line, “For the good that I would, I do not ,” 210 is
something like this: “I want not to think of what is harmful to me, since [not
to do so] is irreproachable good, “built foursquare without blemish by hands
and heart ,”’ 211 as the saying goes. And “The good that I will, Ido not: but the
evil that I would not, that do I” means, “I do not want to conceive of them, yet
I conceive of the things I want not to. ”

57.8 And < it is worth > asking whether it was for this very reason that
David besought God — his own disgust at thinking thoughts he did not choose
to — [and said], "Cleanse thou me from my secret thoughts, and spare thy
servant strange thoughts. If they get not the dominion over me, then shall
I be innocent and cleansed of the great sin .’’ 212 (9) And the apostle himself
says elsewhere, “Casting down thoughts, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captiv-
ity to the obedience of God. ” 213

58,1 But suppose someone still ventures to speak up and reply that the
apostle is teaching that we do the evil we hate and do not want to do, not
only by thinking but also by actually doing it — (2) since Paul has said, “The
good that I would I ‘do’ not: but the evil which I would not, that ‘do’ I.” I shall
require the one who says this to explain, if he is telling the truth, what the evil
was that the apostle hated and wanted not to do, but still did — and < what >
the good was that he wanted to do but did not do, but on the contrary, as
often as he wanted to do this good, he did not do the good he wanted, but
the evil he did not want. (3) When Paul wanted not to worship idols but to
worship God, was he unable to worship God as he wanted to, but able to wor-
ship idols as he wanted not to? Or did he not live the sober life he wanted,
but a licentious life that was vexatious to him? (4) And in a word, did he
drink too much, squander his money, grow angry, do injury, and all the rest

210 Rom 7:19.

211 Plato Protaeoras aaqB.

212 Ps 18:13-14.

213 2 Cor 10:5.

ORIGEN

191

of the evil he wanted not to, but not practice righteousness and holiness as
he wanted to?

58,5 Indeed when, in his effort to see righteousness practiced among us
with no admixture of evil, he urgently exhorts all the members of the churches
not to transgress, he orders not only that active wrongdoers be reserved for
destruction and wrath, but their sympathizers as welL (6) In his Epistles he
often plainly teaches us to turn our backs on these very things and hate them,
and says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor
covetous, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God .” 214
(7) And as his last word, to urge us to shun and reject all sin completely, he
plainly says, “Be ye imitators of me, as I am of Christ ," 215

58,8 Thus the lines we have quoted suggest, not Paul’s actual doing of the
things he wanted not to, but his mere thinking of them. Otherwise, how could
he be an exact imitator of Christ? Since savage thoughts often occur to us,
however, filling us time after time with desires and senseless curiosity “like
many swarms of buzzing flies, ” 216 Paul said, “What I would not, that do I. ” 217
One must frighten these things away from the soul with a good courage, and
not even incline to the carrying out of their suggestions.

58, g For this troubling of our minds with many thoughts is meant to
ensure our admission to the kingdom of heaven after being tested with all
sorts of pleasures and pains — provided that we do not change, but like pure
gold tried by fire, never depart from the virtue that becomes us. (10) We must
therefore resist heroically, like shock troops who pay no heed to their arrows
and other missiles when they see themselves under siege by enemies, but who
eagerly charge them, with zeal unflagging in the defense of their city, till
they put their band to flight and drive it beyond their borders. (11) For you
see how, because of our indwelling sin, these thoughts from without band
together against us like mad dogs or fierce, savage bandits, always urged on
by the despot and chief of wickedness, who is testing our ability to withstand
and resist them.

5g,i To work, my soul, or you will yield and be made prisoner, and I will
have nothing to give in exchange for you! For ‘What shall a man give in
exchange for his soul ?" 218 (2) It would be a good thing — indeed, a most

214 1 Cor 6:9-10.

215 1 Cor 11:1.

216 Iliad 2.469.

217 Rom 7:19.

218 Matt 16:28.

192

ORIGEN

happy thing — if we did not have our adversaries and opponents. But as this
cannot be — it would amount to salvation without effort — and we cannot
have what we want, for we want not to have allurements to passion; and
what we want does not materialize, but what we do not want does, since,
as I said, we need to be tested; let us never, never yield to the evil one, my
soul! ( 3 ) Let us “take the whole armor of God” to protect and fight for us,
and “Let us put on the breastplate of righteousness, have our feet shod with
the readiness of the Gospel of peace, and above all take the shield of faith,
wherewith we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one, and
the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,
that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil ” 219 and “cast down
thoughts and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of
God ;” 220 “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood .” 221

59,4 I say this because this is the character of the apostle’s writings. There
is a great deal to say in proof of the orthodoxy and circumspection even
of every line in this Epistle; but to go over each one from this standpoint
would take too long. Here I prefer to show simply his character and purpose
( 5 ) when he says, rightly, “What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that
do I. <If then I do that which I would not >, I consent unto the law of God
that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, the good dwelleth not .” 222 ( 6 ) For
you remember the limits we set for ourselves earlier. Even though I am going
slowly despite my effort to run through everything quickly, although my dis-
course is more prolix than I had expected it would certainly be desirable to
finish it. Besides, we have not yet reached the end of the subject.

60,1 Very well, we were saying, if you will recall, that from the moment
when the man erred and broke the commandment, sin had its beginning
because of his disobedience, and made its abode in him. ( 2 ) Thus a clash
of impulses first fell upon us, and we were filled with unseemly thoughts.
Because we had taken a shortcut past God’s commandment we were emp-
tied of God’s inspiration, but filled with the material desire which the coiling
serpent breathed into us. ( 3 ) And so, for our sakes, God devised death for
the destruction of sin, to keep it from being immortal, as I said, since it had
appeared in us while we were immortal.

219 Eph 6:13-17.

220 2 Cor 10:4-5.

221 Eph 6:12.

222 Rom 7:15-18.

ORIGEN

193

60.4 Thus in saying “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, the good
dwelleth not ,” 223 the apostle means the sin that, since the transgression, has
made itself at home in us through desire, the pleasure-loving thoughts of
which keep springing up around us like new shoots and twigs. ( 5 ) For there
are two kinds of thoughts in us. The one kind arises from the desire which
lurks in the body, and has been caused, as I said, by the inspiration of the
material spirit. The other has come from our regard for the commandment,
which we have been given to have as an innate natural law, and which urges
and restores our thoughts to the good. ( 6 ) Hence we “ delight ” 224 in the law of
God in our minds — this is what the “inner man” means — but with the desire
that dwells in the flesh we delight in the devil’s law. For the law which “war-
reth against and opposeth the law of God” 223 — that is, opposes our mind’s
desire, our impulse to the good — is the law which is forever fostering lustful,
material turns to lawlessness, and is altogether a temptation to pleasures.

61.1 For it seems plain to me that Paul here assumes the existence of three
laws. One corresponds to the innate good in us, and he plainly called this the
“law of the mind." One arises from the assault of the evil and often draws the
soul to sensual imaginings; Paul said that this “law” is at war with the “law
of the mind.” ( 2 ) Another is the law which corresponds to the sin that has
become habitual in the flesh because of its lust; this, Paul called the “law of
sin which dwells in the members." Mounted on this as his steed, the evil one
often spurs it against us, driving us to wickedness and evil deeds. ( 3 ) For the
law which is breathed into us from without by the evil one and which, through
the senses, pours into the soul itself like a stream of pitch, is strengthened by
the law in the flesh which corresponds with its lust.

61.4 For it is plain that the better and the worse are within ourselves, and
that, when that which is by nature better becomes stronger than that which
is worse, the mind as a whole is swayed to the good. But when the worse is
larger and weighs us down — the thing which is said to be at war with the
good in us — the man, again, is led to all sorts of imaginings and to the worse
sort of thoughts.

62.1 Because of this very law the apostle prays for rescue; like the prophet
who said, “Cleanse thou me from my secret sins ,” 226 he regards it as death
and destruction. ( 2 ) His words themselves prove as much; he says, “I delight
in the law of God after mine inner man, but I see another law in my members,

223 Rom 7:18.

224 Rom 7:22.

225 Cf. Rom 7:23.

226 Ps 18:13.

194

ORIGEN

warring against the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law
of sin, which is in my members. 0 wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver
me from this body of death ?” 221 ( 3 ) Paul does not term the body “death,” but
the law of sin in the members < of the body >, which lurks in us because of
the transgression and is always inciting the soul’s imagination to the “death”
of wickedness.

62.4 At once, no doubt undone by the sort of death from which he was
yearning for rescue, he also adds who his rescuer was: “I thank God through
Jesus Christ.” 229, We must note, Aglaophon, that if, as you people have sup-
posed, he meant that this body is death, he would not be inviting Christ to
rescue him later from such an evil. What more peculiar, or even more than
peculiar outcome could we have from Christ’s coming?

62.5 And why ever did the apostle say that he could be freed from this
“death” by God through the coming of Christ, when, in fact, death was every-
one’s lot even before Christ entered the world? ( 6 ) For everyone was "rescued”
from their bodies by being separated from them on their departure from this
life. And all the souls likewise — of faithless and faithful, of unjust and just —
were separated from their bodies on the day of their death. ( 7 ) What more
than the others — who had lived in unbelief— was the apostle anxious to get?
Or if he supposed that the body is the death of the soul, why did he pray for
deliverance from the body, which he would surely get even against his will,
just as death and the separation of their souls from their bodies is the lot of
everyone?

62,8 And so, Aglaophon, he does not mean that this body is death, but
that the sin which lives < within > the body through lust is death — the sin
from which God delivered him by the coming of Christ. ( 9 ) “For the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ fesus hath made us free from the Law of sin and
death, ” 229 so that “He that raised up Jesus from the dead may also quicken
our mortal bodies because of his Spirit that dwelleth in us ," 230 ( 10 ) “with the
sin in the body condemned” to destruction, “so that the requirement of the
law ” 231 of nature, which attracts us to the good as the commandment directs,
may be set alight and made visible. For before Christ’s coming when the flesh
was controlled by sin, this smoldered feebly under a heap of material cares.
( 11 ) For God gave new strength to “the impotence of the natural law within

227 Rom 7:22-24.

228 Rom 7:25.

229 Rom 8:2.

230 Rom 8:11.

231 Rom 8:3-4.

ORIGEN

195

us, while it was feeble " 232 from its defeat by the lust in our bodies. For he
sent his Son to take a flesh like our sinful flesh — that which appeared was
real, not an illusion — (12) so that, with sin condemned to destruction so as
to “bring forth” no more “fruit " 233 in the flesh, the requirement of the law of
nature would be fulfilled. It would have grown, through obedience, in those
who followed, not the desire of the flesh, but the desire and guidance of the
Spirit. (13) For “the law of the Spirit of life,” which is the Gospel and is differ-
ent from the other laws and meant to foster obedience and the forgiveness of
sins through the proclamation of it, “hath set us free from the law of sin and
death ," 234 and entirely conquered the sin which rules the flesh.

62,14 I have said these things, Theophilus, to clarify the passages which
they cite even from the words of the apostle, but do not expound correctly.
But I shall turn to the rest, provided that I can find someone to help me
through to the end of my discourse. For the material which follows this is
abstruse, and by no means easy to master. (15) So I undertake the more dif-
ficult part of it, though I can see that the demonstration will be long and
hard unless a breeze of understanding suddenly blows on us from heaven as
though we were being tossed in mid-sea, and restores us to a calm harbor
and a more reliable proof.

So far the excerpt from Methodius

63,1 This is the < selection* > of consecutive passages < which I have
made*> < from > Methodius’, or Eubulius’, < comments* > on Origen and
the heresy which, with sophistical imposture, Origen puts forward in his
treatise on resurrection. I believe that my quotation of these passages here
will do for his silly teachings, and sufficiently refute his < destruction* >
of men’s < hope* > for life with a malignancy which has been taken from
pagan superstition and plastered over. (2) For many other things — surely
even as many more — were also said in his followup of the subject by Meth-
odius, a learned man and a hard fighter for the truth. (3) But since I have
promised to say a few things in its refutation about every sect — there are
not few of them! — I content myself with quoting Methodius’ work [only]
this far. (4) And I, of my poverty, shall add a few more comments of my
own on Origen’s nonsense and conclude the contest with him, award-
ing the prize to God who gives us the victory and, in his lovingkindness,

232 Cf. Rom 8:3.

233 Cf. Rom 7:4.

234 Rom 8:2.

ig6

ORIGEN

adorns his church at all times with the unfading wreaths of the teachings
of the truth. So, as best I can, I too shall speak against him.

63,5 As I have indicated earlier, Mister, you scornfully say, “Was God a
tanner, to make skin tunics for Adam and Eve when no animals had yet
been slaughtered? And even if animals had been slaughtered, < there was
no tanner there. What the scripture meant, then, was* > not skin tunics,
but the body of earth which surrounds us.” (6) And you are exposed in
every respect as a follower of the devil’s < inspiration > and the guile of the
serpent, who brought the corruption of unbelief on mankind, deceived
Eve, and continues to corrupt the minds of simple people with the villainy
< of his inspiration > 235

63,7 Let’s see whether your arguments can stand, then, since you’ve
worked so hard and carried the struggle of writing so many books out
to such useless length. (8) For if the story of your composing 6000 books
is true, 236 you energy-waster, then, after expending all that futile effort
on lampoons and useless tricks and rendering your work valueless and
empty, you made the toil of your trafficking profitless by being mistaken
in the main points with which you counterfeited the resurrection.

63.9 For if the body does not rise, the soul will have no inheritance
either. The fellowship of the body and the soul is one and the same, and
they have one work. But faithful men exhaust themselves in body and soul
in their hope of the inheritance after resurrection — and you say there will
not be one! Our faith is < of no value >, then; and there is no value in our
hope, though it is in accordance with the apostolic and true promise of
the Holy Spirit.

63.10 But though you, on the contrary, confess a resurrection yourself,
since what you have is an illusory appearance and nothing real, you are
compelled to say nothing but the name. How can we speak of a soul’s “ris-
ing,” when it doesn’t fall and isn’t buried? (11) It is plain from the name
that the resurrection of the body, which has fallen and been buried, is
proclaimed, everywhere and in every scripture, by the sons of the truth.
But if the body doesn’t rise, the resurrection proclaimed by all the scrip-
tures isn’t possible. (12) And if there is no resurrection, [any] expectation
of the resurrection of the dead is useless. For there is no resurrection of
souls, which have not fallen; but there is a resurrection of bodies, which

235 Holl tv)s aiiTou E7n7rvoia;, MSS ev xai? auxuv Siavoia?.

236 Origen’s admirer Rufinus attacked Epiphanius for stating publicly that Origen had
written 6000 books, and that he, Epiphanius, had read them. Epiphanius denied the charge
in a lost letter to Jerome. Cf. Jer. C. Rufin. 2.21-22; 3.23.

ORIGEN

197

have been buried. (13) And even if a portion of the body is raised while a
portion is laid to rest, how can there be any such portion? There cannot
be parts of the body which are raised, and parts which are laid to rest and
left behind.

63,14 < Anyone with a sound mind can see* > that, [just] because there
is a spiritual body and an ensouled body, the spiritual body is not one
thing and the ensouled body something else; the ensouled and the spiri-
tual body are the same. (15) We have ensouled bodies while we are in the
world and doing the corruptible deeds of the flesh; for in the world we
are enslaved to the soul in its wicked deeds, as you too have said up to a
point. (16) When we are raised, however, there is no more enslavement to
the soul but there is a following of the Spirit, for from that time on they
have the Earnest 237 as scripture says, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also
walk by the Spirit; and if we walk by the Spirit, by mortifying the deeds
of the body we shall live.” 238 (17) There will be no more marriages, no
more lusts, no more struggles for those who profess continence. There
will be no more of the transgressions which run counter to purity, and no
more of the sorts of deeds that are done here; as the Lord says, “They that
are accounted worthy of that resurrection neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are as the angels.” 239

64.1 And thus Enoch was translated so as not to see death, and was
not found. But at his translation he didn’t leave his body, or part of his
body, behind. If he had left his body he would have seen death, but being
translated with his body, he did not see death. For he is in a living body,
and because of his translation his state is spiritual, not ensouled, though,
to be sure, he is in a spiritual body.

64.2 The same < has been said* > of Elijah, moreover, because he was
taken up in a chariot of fire and is still in the flesh — but in a spiritual
flesh which will never again need, < as > it did when it was in this world
to be fed by ravens, drink from the brook of Kerith, and wear a fleece.
It is fed by another, spiritual nourishment the supplier of which is God,
who knows secrets and has created things unseen; and it has food which
is immortal and pure.

64.3 And you see that the ensouled body is the same as the spiritual
body, just as our Lord arose from the dead, not by raising a different body,

237 Cf. 2 Cor 5:5.

238 Cf. Gal 5:25; Rom 8:13.

239 Cf. Luke 20:35.

ig8

ORIGEN

but his own body and not different from his own. But he had changed his
own actual body to spiritual fineness and united a spiritual whole, and he
entered where doors were barred, (4) as our bodies here cannot because
they are gross, and not yet united with spiritual fineness.

64,5 What was it, then, that entered where doors were barred? Some-
thing other than the crucified body, or the crucified body itself? Surely,
Origen, you cannot fail to admit that it was the crucified body itself!
(6) ft refutes you by the clear demonstration it gave to Thomas, telling him
besides, “Be not faithless, but believing.” 240 For Christ displayed even the
mark of the nails and the mark of the lance, and left those very wounds
in his body even though he had joined his body to a single spiritual one-
ness. (7) Thus he could have wiped the wounds away too, but to refute
you, you madman, he does not. Therefore it was the body which had been
buried for the three days in the tomb, and which had arisen with him in
the resurrection. For he displayed bones, skin and flesh, as he said, “See
that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” 241

64,8 Why, then, did he enter where doors were barred? Why but to
prove that the thing they saw was a body, not a spirit — but a spiritual body,
not a material one, even though it was accompanied by its soul, Godhead,
and entire incarnate humanity, (g) ft was the same body, but spiritual;
the same body, once gross, now fine; the same body, once crucified, now
< brought to life* >; the same body, once conquered, now unconquerable,
ft was united and commingled with his divine nature and never again
to be destroyed, but forever abiding, never again to die. (10) For “Christ
is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept.” 242 < But once
risen > “He dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” 243
65,1 But also, to show you why Christ is called “the firstfruits of them
that slept” 244 even though he was not the first to rise — Lazarus and the
widow’s son arose before him by his aid, and others by the aid of Elijah
and Elisha. (2) But since they all died again after rising, Christ is the first-
fruits of them that slept. For after his resurrection “He dieth no more,” 245
since, through his life and lovingkindness, he is to be our resurrection. 246

240 John 20:27.

241 Luke 24:39.

242 1 Cor 15:20.

243 Rom 6:9.

244 1 Cor 15:20.

245 Rom 6:9.

246 Holl yjjicov fieW.cov dvdurauu; eTvai, MSS rj [leTkouja avdaTaan; dvcu.

ORIGEN

199

65,3 Now if he is the hrstfruits of them that slept, and if his body arose
in its entirety together with his Godhead, his human nature < must appear
in its entirety > after its resurrection with none of it left behind, neither
its body nor anything else. “For thou shalt not leave my soul in hades,
neither shalt thou give thine holy one to see corruption.” 247 (4) And what
is said about the soul in hades means that nothing has been left behind;
but “holy one” is said to show that the holy body has not seen corrup-
tion, but has risen uncorrupted after the three days, forever united with
incorruption.

65,5 But Mister, you claim that these bodies are the skin tunics 248
though the passage nowhere says so. But you say it because of the seeds
of the Greeks’ heathen teaching which were sown in you to from that
source, and because of the Greeks’ perverse notion which brought you to
this and taught you. (6) "For the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him, because they are spiritually
discerned.” 249

65,7 If Adam and Eve had gotten the tunics before their disobedience,
your falsehood would be a plausible one, and deceptive. But since it is
plain that < the flesh is already there* > at the time of Eve’s fashioning,
< how can it not be an easy matter to refute your foolishness?* > What
was Eve fashioned from? From a body, plainly; scripture says, “God cast
a deep sleep upon Adam and he slept, and God took one of his ribs.” 250
(8) But a rib is simply a bone; for God built up “flesh in its place.” If flesh
is mentioned [at this point], how can its creation still be in prospect?

65, g And it says earlier, “Let us make man in our image and after our
likeness.” 251 “And he took dust of the earth,” it says, “and fashioned the
man.” 252 But dust and flesh are nothing else than body. (10) Then later
“Adam awoke from his sleep and said, This is bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh.” 253 (11) The skin tunics were not there yet — and neither was
your allegorical falsehood. “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,”
plainly means that Adam and Eve were bodies, and not bodiless.

247 Ps 15:10.

248 Cf. Odes of Solomon 25,6; Iren. Haer. 1.5.5; Hippol. Haer. 10.13.4; Clem. Alex. Exc.
Theod. 55.11.

249 1 Cor 2:14.

250 Gen 2:21.

251 Gen 1:26.

252 Gen 2:7.

253 Cf. Gen 2:23.

200

ORIGEN

65,12 And “She took of the tree and ate” 254 when she was seduced by
the serpent and fell into disobedience; and Adam heard the voice of God
walking in the garden in the evening, and Adam and Eve hid themselves
among the trees.” And God said to Adam, “Where art thou?” But because
he was found out, Adam answered, “I heard thy voice and hid, for I am
naked.” 255 (13) What did he mean by “naked?” Did he mean the soul or the
body? And what did the fig leaves cover, the soul or the body?

65.14 Then God said, “And who told thee that thou art naked, if thou
hast not eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee that of it alone thou
must not eat?” And Adam said, “The woman whom thou gavest me gave
unto me and I did eat.” 256 Now where was the woman “given” from if not
from the side, that is, from Adam’s body — before the tunics were given to
Adam and Eve!

65.15 And God said to the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?”
And she said, “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat, and gave unto my
husband also.” 257 And God laid the curse on the serpent, the pangs of
childbirth on the woman, and the eating of bread by his sweat on the
man.

65.16 “And afterwards God said, Behold, Adam hath become as one of
us. [And now] lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life and live
forever.” 258 (17) And do not suppose, hearer, that the Lord said, “Behold,
Adam hath become as one of us,” as a statement of fact. He said it in
reproof, to reproach Adam’s vanity for being won round by the deceit of
the serpent. What Adam had thought would happen, had not happened;
that is, Adam had not “become as one of us.” From the desire to rise
higher, Adam had fallen lower.

65,18 And it was not from envy that God said, “Let us cast him out,
lest he put forth his hand to the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,” but
to make sure that the vessel which had been damaged by its own fault
would not always remain damaged. (19) Like a master potter he reduced
the vessel with its self-inflicted damage to its raw material, the earth, [to]
remold the righteous at the resurrection, completely undamaged, immor-
tal in glory, capable of enjoying the kingdom — and remold the unrigh-
teous at the final resurrection, with the ability to undergo the penalty of

254 Gen 3:6.

255 Gen 3:8-10.

256 Gen 3:11-12.

257 Gen 3:13.

258 Gen 3:22.

ORIGEN

201

damnation. (20) For God planted nothing evil, never think it! Fie planted
just the tree, and by his own decree permitted Adam to take its fruit at
the proper time, when he needed it.

65.21 But you will retort, “What becomes of ‘In the day in which ye eat
thereof ye shall surely die,’ 259 if Adam could eat from it? “Ye shall surely
die’ would apply to him, surely, no matter when he ate from it!”

65.22 But to the one who says this I reply, “God decreed Adam’s death
for the transgression he would commit, since, even before giving the com-
mandment, God, < who > knows the future, knew that Adam would be
deceived and eat of the tree.” (23) Because they are mistaken in this point
the sects blaspheme God and say, “Some God of the Law! He envied Adam,
cast him out and said, ‘Let us cast him out, lest he put forth his hand and
take of the tree of life and live forever!’ ” 260

65,24 But their stupid idea stands exposed as the false accusation it is.
Not only did God not forbid them to eat from the tree of life in the begin-
ning; he even encouraged them by saying, “Of every tree in the garden
thou mayest eat for food.” But the tree of life too was one of “all the trees
in the garden,” right before Adam’s eyes. (25) Only from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil did God forbid them to eat. But Adam’s greedy
mind disobeyed the commandment instead, from simplicity and < by lis-
tening > to his wife Eve who had been deceived by the devil.

65,26 Since Adam, then, had become defective by his own doing, God
did not want him to live forever defective. Like a master potter God chose
to change the vessel, which had been spoiled by its own doing, back to
its raw material, and again change it from its material, as though on the
wheel, at the regeneration, remaking and renewing it with no defects
so that it could live forever. (27) Hence at first he threatens death, but
the second time he no longer says “death,” but says, “Dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return,” 261 “without having consigned the man to
death . . ,” 262 (28) And after some other material, “And God made tunics of
skin and clothed Adam and Eve, and cast them out of the garden.” 263 And
you see, Origen, that your novel nonsense is worthless. How long Adam
and Eve had had bodies!

259 Gen 2:17.

260 Epiphanius means the Manichaeans; he quotes this as a Manichaean argument at
Pan. 66,83,2. Cf. also NHC Testim. Truth 45,23-47,30.

261 Gen 3:19.

262 A scriptural citation has fallen out before this one.

263 Gen 3:21-23.

202

ORIGEN

66.1 But if this shows your guilt, you unbeliever and worse, and if you
cannot receive the grace of the Spirit because of your soulish thinking,
then tell me how wonderful and astonishing is each thing that God has
done. (2) How has the heaven been spread out from nothing and hung in
mid-air? How was the sun made bright, and how were the moon and the
stars created? From which primal matter was the earth taken, when it was
made from nothing? From which materials were the mountains hewn?

66,3 What was the origin of the whole world, which God brought
forth from nothing? How were the clouds formed, which cover the sky in
an instant? (4) Where were the gnats and fleas provided from by God’s
command, for his servant Moses? How did God change Moses’ wooden
rod into a living serpent that crawled? How was Moses’ hand changed to
snow? (5) And in Adam’s time too, you unbeliever, God willed, and made
actual skin tunics without animals, without human craft and any of the
various sorts of human work — < and > made them for Adam and Eve at
the moment of his willing them, as he willed at the beginning, and the
heaven, and all things, were made at that very moment.

66,6 And for those who care < to choose* > life, salvation can be put
in a few words and heresy is an easy matter to refute. But for those who
are unwilling to receive the doctrine of salvation, not even the whole
aeon would not be time enough for discussion, since, as the sacred oracle
says, “Their hearing is ever deaf, like the < deaf > adder that stoppeth her
ears, refusing to receive the voice of the charmer and the spell cast by the
wise.” 264 However, although what I say here is not extensive, I believe that
it is of no little value to the sons of the truth.

67.1 But I shall pass on to the discussion of resurrection which you base
on the first Psalm. For when you deceive the ignorant, you waster of effort,
by palming your ideas off on them, and say that some “simple” people
believe that the impious do not attain resurrection — and when you show
later how you ask these “simple” people which body will be raised, and
< mock them by replying* > in your own words for the people you call
“simple” — < you are compelled >, for I must say this plainly, to call your
so-called “simple” people “good.” 265 (2) < For > you are not saying this of
yourself, and no grace is being given to your speech; you say it because
of the truth, which compels you to give the signs of the superiority and
goodness of the servants of God!

264 Ps 57:5-6-

265 Cf. 64,10,7; 12,5.

ORIGEN

203

67.3 Even the heathen proverb says, “Simple is the speech of the truth.”
We are accustomed to call the harmless persons, whom the Savior praises
at many points, "simple.” < For example >, [he says], “Be simple as doves,” 266
and, “Suffer the little children” — that is, the simplest of all — “to come
unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 267

67.4 Now the “simple,” as you say, gave you the answer that the resur-
rection is that of this body in which we are enclosed. And when you raise
a difficulty in reply to this and ask them, “Is it a resurrection of the whole
body or of a part of it?” they answer, “of the whole body.” (5) But when, in
your very silly way, you say that this is no good because of the blood that
is drained from our bodies, and the flesh, hair, and other things that are
voided through our spittle, nostrils and excrement, there is a great deal
of trickery in your wrong diagnosis. A better man than I, the venerable
and most blessed Methodius, has already countered your fabrication with
many arguments.

67,6 But you will also hear a bit from my modest self. Anything we
want, we want perfectly clean; we do not require the excess material
which is removed from a thing that is clean. (7) Once a garment has been
woven on the web it is complete and that is what is cut from the warp,
with < nothing > added to it or removed from it. If it is given to a fuller
it will not be expected back from the fuller reduced in size; even from
the fuller we get it back perfectly whole. (8) Thus it is plain to everyone
that it is entirely the same garment, and has become a smaller body in
no way but by the removal of the spots and dirt. And surely, since he has
removed the dirt, we will not demand the garment back from the fuller
dirty; we shall want the garment itself, untorn, in good condition, and
perfectly clean.

67, g But here is another illustration. You have raised the question
of the fluid which is drained away by bleedings, illness, excretion, and
the dribbling of our spittle and nostrils; but you will be refuted from the
very things you have said. (10) For not just this is in the body; vermin —
lice and bugs — grow from us, as it were, and are not considered either
apart from the body or part of the body. (11) And no one has ever hunted
for a bug shed by the body, or a louse bred from the flesh itself, to keep
it, but to destroy it. Nor would anyone regard its destruction as a loss.
(12) <Just so > we shall not make a foolish search for the fluids we

266 Matt 10:16.

267 Matt 19:14.

204

ORIGEN

excrete — though it is often as you say 268 — nor would God return these
for our reconstitution. He would leave them behind the second time, like
dirt which is the garment’s dirt but has been removed from the garment
itself for neatness’ sake. The creator would plainly return the whole gar-
ment by the goodness of his skill, with nothing missing or added; for all
things are possible to him.

67.13 But if it were not that way — you, with your brains damaged by
your long-winded notion! [If it were not that way], our Savior and Lord,
the Son of God, who came to make our salvation entirely sure, and who
illustrated our hope mostly in his own person to prove his truthfulness to
us, could have discarded part of himself and raised part of himself, you
trouble-maker, in keeping with your destructive fiction and accumulation
of a host of worthless arguments.

67.14 For to refute your sort of argument, he himself says at once,
“Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone;
but if it fall and die, it beareth many grains.” 269 And whom was he calling
a “grain?” (15) ft is plain to everyone, and the whole world agrees, that he
was speaking of himself — that is, of the body of the holy flesh which he
had received from Mary, and of his whole human nature. (16) But he said
“fall” and “die” of the three-day sleep of his body itself as he says, “Where
the fallen carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together” 270 — and
you yourself will admit it. For his Godhead can never sleep, fall, be mas-
tered, or be changed.

67,17 And so the grain of wheat died and rose. Well, did the grain rise
whole, or did a remnant of it rise? Did another grain rise in place of the
original grain, or did He Who Is himself arise into being? You will surely
not deny < that the body* > arose, which Joseph had wrapped in a shroud
and laid in a new tomb. (18) Then who did the angels tell the women had
risen? — as they say, “Whom seek ye? Jesus of Nazareth? He is risen, he is
not here. Come, see the place!” 271 This was as much as to say, “Come, see
the place, and let Origen know that there is no question of a remnant’s
lying here; the body has risen whole.” (ig) And to show you that it has
risen whole, < scripture says > in refutation of your nonsense, “He is risen.
He is not here.” For no remnant of him was left behind; the very same
body < had risen > which had been nailed [to the wood], pierced with the

268 Holl: noTXay&i;-, MSS: outcoi;.

269 John 12:24.

270 Matt 24:28.

271 Matt 28:5-6.

ORIGEN

205

lance, seized by the Pharisees, spat upon. (68,1) And why should I give the
multitudes of arguments that demolish this pitiable wretch and the non-
sense that has been generated in him? As Christ has risen and has raised
his own body, so he will raise us.

68,2 For the holy apostle demonstrated our hope on this basis by
saying, “How say some of you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither is Christ risen. And if
Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your hope is vain. And
we are also found false witnesses of God, for we have said that he raised
up Christ, whom he raised not up, 272 and so on. (3) And later he adds,
“This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.” 273 And he didn’t just say “mortal,” or just say “corruptible,”
or, “the immortal soul.” He said “this corruptible,” with the addition of
“this;” and “this mortal,” with the addition of “this.” (4) His grain has risen
itself, whole. A part of him has not risen; he has risen whole, and not as
a grain different than the first. The very grain that fell in the tomb has
risen whole.

68,5 And how can your nonsense have any validity? The sacred scrip-
ture knows of two “grains,” one in the Gospel and one in the Apostle.
(6) And the one gives the full explanation because of the process that has
been carried to completion in it, which is the pattern of < our > resurrec-
tion. For by giving this teaching and putting it into practice, the Savior has
surely done everything to prove it to us. (7) No sooner did he speak of the
grain than he raised the grain, as a true confirmation of the faith of our
hope for our resurrection.

68,8 Here the apostle takes over by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, once
more using a grain of wheat to tell us of the saints’ glory after the res-
urrection, and displays their < hope > for the enjoyment of good things.
(9) He denounces unbelievers with, “But thou wilt say unto me, How are
the dead raised up? With what body do they come?” 274 And to anyone
who says such things he replies, “Fool!” For anyone with any doubt of
resurrection is a fool and has no understanding. (10) Then he says, “or of
other seeds, and it is not quickened except it die. But God giveth it a body
as he hath willed, and to every seed its own body. Thou fool, that which
thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest,

272 1 Cor 15:12-15.

273 1 Cor 15:53.

274 1 Cor 15:35.

206

ORIGEN

thou sowest not the body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of
wheat or of other seeds, and it is not quickened except it die. But God
giveth it a body as he hath willed, and to every seed its own body 275

68,11 And you see that the body is not changed. No one sows barley
and looks for wheat, and no one has sown cummin and gotten barley;
the thing that is sown is the same as the thing that is raised. (12) But
if — here, in the case of this perishable wheat which is not under judg-
ment — < some > of it is left below in the ground and its shoot comes up,
the part that is left behind is of no use, but the thing that comes up from
it is better.

68,13 But because of the unbelief of those who do not look for the hope
of God, Paul chose to display its splendor. In fact, the grain of wheat is
a very tiny thing. Where are the roots, the bottom parts of it, the stems
and the joints, in so tiny a grain? Where is such a number of quills, heads,
sheaths, ears, and grains multiplying?

69,1 But to put this more clearly by describing things that are like it —
how could Moses, the son of Jochabed and Amram, pierce the rock with
his staff, bring water from its impenetrable matter, change something dry
to something wet? How could he strike the sea, and part it into twelve
highways in the sea, by < God’s > command? (2) How could he gather so
many frogs in an instant? How could he send the lice upon the Egyptians?
How could he mingle the hail with fire? How could he make the blackness
of a moonless night even darker for the Egyptians? How could he slay the
Egyptians’ first-born with pestilence?

69.3 How could he lead the people whose shepherd he was with a pil-
lar of fire? How could he bring the bread of angels by prayer and supplica-
tion? How could he provide the flock of quails, and glut so many myriads
by God’s command?

69.4 How could he hear God’s voice? Why was he, among so many
myriads, privileged to hear God’s voice and talk with God? How could
he not need the requirements of human nature for forty days and forty
nights? How could his flesh be changed to the brightness and shining ray
of the sun, making the people so giddy that the children of Israel could
not look him in the face? How could his hand, though flesh, be changed
to snow? (5) How could he bid the earth open its mouth and swallow
Korah, Dathan, Abiram and Onan (sic!)? (6) Why was he told at the end

275 Cf. 1 Cor 15:36-38.

ORIGEN

207

of his life, “Ascend the mount and die there?” 276 Why does no man know
his sepulcher? Holy writ suggests that Moses’ body was not buried by men
but, as may reasonably be supposed, by holy angels. (7) And all this was
while Moses was still in this world and still in this ensouled body — which
had, at the same time, become fully spiritual.

69,8 Taking this as the earnest < of our hope, let us use it > as the
model of the perfect sprouting then, when “It is sown in dishonor, it is
raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” 277 is fulfilled,
(g) For how can something sown without knowing where be anything but
“weak?” How can something dumped in a grave and heaped with dust,
something torn, decomposed, and without perception, be anything but
“dishonored?”

69,10 How can a thing be anything but “honored,” when it is raised,
abides forever, and obtains a kingdom in heaven by its hope in God’s
lovingkindness — where “The righteous” shall shine “as the sun;” 278 where
they shall be “equal to the angels;” 279 where they shall dance with the
bridegroom; where Peter and the apostles “shall sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel;” 280 where the righteous shall receive
“what eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, neither hath entered
into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that
love him?” 281 (11) Our resurrection, then, rests with God, and so does any
man’s — righteous and unrighteous, unbeliever and believer, some raised
to eternal life but some to eternal damnation.

70,1 Quiet, Babel, you ancient confusion who have been brought to life
again for us! Quiet, Sodom, and your loud, awful clamor that ascends to
God! (2) “For the redeemer shall come from Zion, and turn away iniqui-
ties from Jacob,” 282 “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall arise,” 283
and “We shall be caught up to meet him in the air” 284 as < my > better, the
< venerable and > blessed Methodius, has said, and I myself have added by
building on the same words.

276 Cf. Deut 32:49-50.

277 1 Cor 15:43.

278 Matt 13:43.

279 Luke 20:36.

280 Matt 19:26.

281 1 Cor 2:9.

282 Isa 59:20.

283 1 Cor 15:52.

284 1 Thes 4:7.

208

ORIGEN

70,3 For from the context of each expression one can see what the
wages are. Though the holy apostle distinguished the natures of the two
kinds [of saved persons], he united them in one hope with his words, “We
shall be caught up in the clouds to meet him” — showing that it is actually
this body < that rises > and not something else; for one who is “caught up”
has not died. (4) And by indicating that “We shall not precede the resur-
rection of the dead” 285 as proof that what is impossible for men is easy
and possible for God — “For we, the living, shall not precede them that
are asleep and their resurrection” 286 — he made it plain that the living are
caught up as well. This shows, from the living, that the bodies of the dead
will be raised whole; and from the fact that the dead precede those who
are alive and remain, it shows what is possible to God. (5) “For the dead
shall arise, and they that are in the graves shall be raised up,” 287 says the
prophet.

But since I do not want to omit what the prophet Ezekiel says about
resurrection in his own apocryphon, 288 I shall give it here. (6) To give a
symbolic description of the just judgment in which the soul and the body
share, Ezekiel says, A king had made soldiers of everyone in his kingdom
and had no civilians but two, one lame and one blind, and each < of these >
lived by himself in his own home. (7) When the king gave a marriage feast
for his son he invited everyone in his kingdom, but despised the two civilians,
the lame man and the blind man. They were annoyed however, and thought
of an injury to do the king.

70.8 Now the king had a garden. The blind man addressed the lame man
from a distance and said, “How much did we have to eat with the crowds
who were invited to the celebration? Come on, let’s get back at him for what
he did to us!"

“How?" asked the other.

70.9 And the blind man said “Let’s go into the garden and ruin the plants
there. ”

But the lame man said, “And how can I, when I’m lame and can’t [even]
crawl?”

285 Cf. 1 Thes 4:15.

286 1 Thes 4:16.

287 Isa 26:19.

288 Epiphanius is the sole authority for this fragment of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel,
Fragment 1 in the translation of J. R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson, in Charlesworth I pp.
487-495. Jewish versions of the story are found at T. Sanhedrim giab; Mekhilta Exod. 15:1.

ORIGEN

209

And the blind man said, “Can I do anything myself, when I can’t see where
I’m going? But let’s figure something out.”

70.10 The lame man plucked the grass nearby him, braided a rope, threw
it at the blind man, and said, “Grab it, and come here to me by the rope.’’ He
did as he was told, and when he got there, the lame man said, “Here, you be
my feet and carry me, and I’ll be your eyes and guide you from on top, to the
right and to the left. ”

70.11 By so doing they got into the garden, and whether they did it any
damage or not, their tracks were there to be seen in the garden afterwards.
(12) And the merry-makers who entered the garden on leaving the wedding
were surprised to see the tracks in the garden. They told the king and said,
“All are soldiers inyour kingdom and no one is a civilian. Then why are there
civilians’ tracks in the garden?”

70,13 The king was surprised — as the parable in the apocryphon says,
obviously speaking to men in a riddle. God is not unaware of anything.
But the story says, Tke king sent for the lame man and the blind man and
asked the blind man, “Didn’t you go into the garden?" but the blind man
answered, “Oh, Sir! You see my handicap, you know I can< ‘t > see where I’m
going!” (14) Then he went to the lame man and asked him, “Did you go into
my garden?" But he replied, “Sir, do you want to make me miserable over my
handicap?" And then judgment was stymied.

70,15 What did the righteous judge do? Seeing how the two had been put
together he put the lame man on the blind man and examined them both
under the lash, and they couldn’t deny the charge. (16) They incriminated
each other, the lame man by saying to the blind man, “Didn’t you pick me up
and carry me?” and the blind man by saying to the lame man, “Weren’t you
my eyes?” (17) Thus the body is linked with the soul and the soul with the
body, for the exposure of their joint work, and there is a full judgment of
both, the soul and the body; < they are jointly responsible* > for the things
they have done, whether good or evil.

70,18 And see — you who care for your salvation — how all the attackers
of the truth have added to their own wickedness, as the prophet David
says, “He hath conceived labor and brought forth wrongdoing.” 289 (19) For
whoever induces labor with heretical notions within him also gives birth
to wickedness, his own and his followers’: “He hath digged a cistern and
shoveled it out, and shall himself fall into the pit.” 290

289 Ps 7:15.

290 Ps 7:16.

210

ORIGEN

70,20 But if anyone can reply to all this, let him come on! If anyone

< cares > to oppose God, let him make the venture! For God is mighty
and “will not tire, or hunger, or thirst, and there is no finding out of his
counsel” 291 by which he raises decayed bodies, saves what is lost, quick-
ens what is dead; by which he clothes the corruptible with incorruption,
brings the fallen seed to resurrection, by his renewing of it brings what has
been sown and has died to a radiance more glorious. So we find in many
scriptures where there are hints of our resurrection.

71.1 In David< ’s > Psalm on the rededication of the house of David, the
prophet aptly said of resurrection — [speaking] as one who awaited what
was to come and saw it by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration — “I will exalt thee,

0 Lord, for thou hast lifted me up and renewed mine house” — that is, the
fallen body — “and not made my foes to rejoice over me.” 292

71.2 By holding every part of the hope [of resurrection] ready, Solomon
too urged us in riddles to prepare for the next life. He says, “Prepare thy
works for their end” — by “end” he means departure from this life — “and
make ready for the held.” 293 [And yet] he directed the admonition to all
alike — countrymen and townsmen, the learned and the artisans, from
whom no agricultural labor is expected. (3) Why should linen-weavers, sil-
versmiths, poets and chroniclers prepare to farm? But his cry summoned
all together without distinction, and said further, “Make ready for the
held.” < What > can it be suggesting but that the interment of the body, its
end by burial, is a “held” for everyone, townsmen and countrymen alike?
(4) And then he says next, meaning the same hope of resurrection, “And
thou shalt rebuild thine house.” 294 He didn’t say, “Thou shalt build thine
house;” it was built once by its formation in the womb, when our mothers
conceived us all at our formation. The resurrection will come from the
earth, or “held,” to a house that is no longer being “built” but, because of
its cleansing in the entombed corpse, rebuilt.

71,5 And as the Savior said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days

1 will raise,” or build, “it.” 295 For he is wisdom, and < excels* > by a “coun-
sel which there is no” human “finding out” 296 By it < he gathers* > our

< remains* > from inaccessible places, since some of our bodies have been

291 Isa 40:28.

292 Ps 29:2.

293 Prov 24:27.

294 Prov 24:27.

295 John 2:19.

296 Cf. Isa 40:28.

ORIGEN

211

scattered as ashes and some in the sea, while some have been destroyed by
birds of prey, wild beasts, or worms — [gathers us] and brings us < whole
to regeneration* >. (6) For if God brought the < existent > from non-exis-
tence to existence, how much more easily can he restore the existent to
the state which is proper to it? In this way he gives a just judgment, and
will not judge one in another’s place, depriving me of what is mine.

71,7 For if the enjoyment and inheritance of the kingdom of heaven
are [only] the soul’s, let the body have what it wants! Gideon and his
men may live at ease and not be afflicted “in sheepskins and goatskins.” 297
John, with his garment of camel’s hair, need not labor in vain. Nor need
we mortify the flesh in holy retirement, master our bodies through purity.
(8) But if the body is the soul’s partner in its disciplines, purity, fasting and
other virtues, “God is not” [so] “unrighteous” 298 [as] to deprive the laborer
of the fruit of his labor, and award no recompense to the body which has
labored with the soul.

71, g [If there is no resurrection of the body], judgment will plainly be
suspended. For if the soul appears all by itself it can reply to its sentence,
‘The responsibility for the sin is not mine. Fornication, adultery and wan-
tonness are caused by that corruptible body of earth. For I have done
none of these things since it left me” — and it will have a good case, and
undo God’s judgment.

71,10 And even if God should bring the body to judgment by itself — for
he can, as I have already shown through Ezekiel 299 For even though the
action was set in a parable, that kind of thing was done as an allegory of
the truth that was expressed in the [other] parable, when bone was joined
to bone and joint to joint and, although the bones were dry and there was
no soul or spirit in them yet to move them, the bodies were put together
at once, and made firm by the prophet’s command. (11) And if God so
wills, he has the power to make this body appear and be moved without
a soul, as Abel’s blood, which is body, not soul, spoke after his death. (For
the blood is not soul; anything that can be seen is a body.)

71,12 But the body cannot be judged without a soul. It too could retort,
“I didn’t sin, the soul did! Since it was separated from me have I com-
mitted adultery, fornication, idolatry?” And the body would dispute
God’s righteous judgment, and with reason. (13) For this and many other

297 Heb 11:37.

298 Heb 6:10.

299 Cf. Pan. 64,70,13 and Ezek 37:4-6.

212

ORIGEN

cogent reasons God in his wisdom brings our dead bodies and our souls to
regeneration by his kindly promises, so that one who has grown weary in
holiness may receive his whole good reward from God; and those whose
deeds were worthless may be judged as well, body with soul and soul with
body.

71,14 And as a further assurance of our salvation < the Word himself* >
came in the flesh, took perfect manhood and < appeared among us* >,
to strengthen his faith within us — foreknowing your future unbelief, Ori-
gen, and desiring < to confirm* > the doctrine which you doubt more, and
which is doubted in many sects, the Manichaeans and Marcionites whose
unbelief is similar to yours. And finally, when he had accomplished every-
thing to confirm and establish his faith and truth in his own person, he
did [the same things] for all to see. (15) For after rising from the dead
[himself] he raised many bodies of the saints with him, and they entered
the holy city with him, as 1 have also described elsewhere. 300 (16) And to
leave no opportunity for an unfair stratagem, the scripture did not say,
“the saints arose.” It hastened < to confirm* > that very thing which is
doubted by unbelievers, and to confirm what we know of salvation said,
“the bodies of the saints.” (17) And it wasn’t just that he raised them, but
that they showed < themselves > to many in the city when the words,
“bringing forth prisoners in manhood” 301 — that is, bringing the souls of
the risen bodies — had been fulfilled in them by his power. For these were
the prisoners of the camp, who had been confined in hades. (18) And it
says, “Likewise them that embitter, the dwellers in graves” 302 to mean the
bodies of the risen. And he did not say, “them that have been embittered,”
or “are embittered,” but, “them that embitter.”

71,19 For when the newly dead, together with the most ancient,
appeared to many in the city — (1 presume that he began the resurrection
with Adam. And the newly dead < had been buried in the same place,
Golgotha, and their bodies laid to rest above Adam’s, so that Christ,
who* > had been crucified < there, raised*> those buried above Adam
on Golgotha < together with Adam* [himself] >, fulfilling the scripture,
“Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ,” who was
crucified above thee, “shall give thee light.” 303 ) [When the recently dead
appeared] and other members of their families recognized < them >, at

300 Anc. 100,2; Pan. 46,5,10.

301 Ps 67:7.

302 Ps 67:7.

303 Eph 5:14.

ORIGEN

213

first they astonished the beholders. (20) For if a father met a child who
had risen, or a brother met a brother, or a < kinsman > met a kinsman who
had died ten or twenty years before, and asked in amazement, ’’Aren’t you
so-and-so, whom we buried here? How have you risen and come back?”

(21) the newly risen would ask in reply, “What happened here among you
three days ago, when the earth was shaken?”

And when the first said, “We arrested a fraud named Jesus who deceived
the people and crucified him, and that put a stop to the deception,”

(22) the risen would at last confess the Lord’s grace and truth and say,
“Woe to you! You have denied and crucified the Author of the world’s
salvation! He has raised us by the mighty power of his Godhead and man-
hood.” This at last would provide the fulfillment of the sacred scripture,
“likewise them that embitter, the dwellers in the graves.” (23) For when
they heard from the risen that they had risen through the Lord Jesus, they
would feel bitter as death because they had ventured to deny and crucify
the Author of life. (24) And perhaps the kindly Lord did even this for the
benefit of those who saw the risen. For I presume that many who were
pricked in their consciences by seeing the risen, were benefited by it, and
became believers. You be converted and believe too, you Origenists, and
stop destroying many with your imposture!

72,1 But this will be enough about the would-be sage, Origen, who
named himself Adamantius for no good reason, and his outrage against
the truth in many points of the faith, the destructive doctrine of his
clumsy invention. (2) I shall pass his sect by too, beloved, and investigate
the others next, with my usual plea for God’s aid to my lack of education,
which will enable me to resist and overcome every voice that is raised in
vain against the truth, as the holy prophet Isaiah said, (3) “Every voice
that is raised against thee, all of them shalt thou overcome, but they shall
be guilty.” 304 I shall thus carry out my promise in God to those who are
willing to read attentively for exercise in truth, and as a medicine, like an
antidote, for each wild beast and poisonous snake — I mean these as sym-
bols of the sects — and for this sect of Origenists, which looks like a toad
noisy from too much moisture which keeps croaking louder and louder.

72,4 Taking the Lord’s resurrection for a preventive draught, as it were,
let us spit out the oil of the toad’s poison, and the harm that has been
done by the noxious creature. (5) For this is what has happened to Origen
with all his followers, and I mourn him on this account. Ah, how badly you

304 Isa 54:17.

214

ORIGEN

have been hurt, and how many others you have hurt — as though you have
been bitten by a baneful viper, I mean secular education, and become the
cause of others’ death.

72,6 Naturalists say that a dormouse hides in its den and bears a
number of young at once, as many as five and more, but vipers hunt them.
(7) And if a viper finds the den full, since it cannot eat them all it eats its
fill of one or two then and there, but punctures the eyes of the rest, and
after they are blinded brings them food, and feeds them until it is ready to
take each one out and eat it. (8) But if simple people happen upon such
creatures and take them for food, they poison themselves with < the > ani-
mals that have been fed on the viper’s venom, (g) And you too, Origen,
with your mind blinded by your Greek education, have spat out venom
for your followers, and become poisonous food for them, harming more
people with the poison by which you yourself have been harmed.

ANACEPHALAEOSIS V

Here, too, are the contents of the second Section of this same second Vol-
ume; in the system of numeration we have indicated, it is the fifth Section.
It contains five Sects, as follows:

65 65. < Paulianists, derived > from Paul the Samosatian, who was
made bishop of the metropolis of Antioch. He all but insisted that Christ
is non-existent, for he portrayed him as an uttered word that has existed
only since the time of Mary, and said that what is said about him in the
sacred scriptures is predictive — and that he did not preexist, but < came
into existence > in Mary’s time, through the incarnation.

66.1 66. Manichaeans, also called Acvanites, the disciples of Mani the
Persian. They pretendedly speak of Christ but worship the sun and the
moon, and invoke stars, powers and daemons. They introduce two first
principles, a good one and an evil one, [both of them] eternal. (2) They say
that Christ has been manifest [only] in appearance, and that he suffered
[only] in appearance. They blaspheme the Old Testament and the God
who spoke in it, and declare that not the whole world is God’s creation,
but [only] part of it

67.1 67. Hieracites, who derive from Hieracas of Leontopolis in Egypt,
an expositor of scripture. Although they use the Old and the New Tes-
taments, they deny the resurrection of the flesh. And they entirely for-
bid marriage, though they accept monks and virgins, and the continent
and widows. (2) They say that children who have not reached the age of
puberty have no part in the kingdom, since they have not engaged in the
struggle.

68 68. Melitians, who live in Egypt and are a schism — though not a
sect — because they would not pray with persons who had fallen away
during the persecution. Now, however, they have become associated with
the Arians.

69.1 69. Arians, also called the Arian Nuts, who say that the Son of
God is a creature and that the Holy Spirit is the creature of a creature,
and maintain that the Savior took only flesh from Mary and not a soul.
(2) Arius was a presbyter of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria.

This is the summary of the five Sects of the second Section of Volume
Two — though counting from the beginning of the series, it is the fifth
Section.

2l6

PAUL THE SAMO SATIAN

Against Paul the Samosatian 1 45, but 65 of the series

1,1 Their successor 2 is Paul, called the Samosatian, who was born after
Navatus and Origen. (Origen is at last counted as a heretic because of
the deliberate arrogance with which he exalted himself against the truth,
through his boastful nonsense and the idea of this that was instigated by
the devil. (2) He must be mourned as one who has indeed come to grief
“through envy of the devil” 3 and fallen from a height; for the saying, “The
fascination of evil obscures what is good, and the roving of desire per-
verteth the innocent mind,” 4 applies exactly to him.)

1,3 Now this Paul the Samosatian whom it has occurred to me to dis-
cuss, whose name I mentioned at the start and whose sect I am < now >
describing, was from Samosata, which is off towards Mesopotamia and
the Euphrates. (4) He was made bishop of the holy catholic church at
Antioch at this time, during the reigns of the emperors Aurelian and
Probus. 5 But he grew proud and was deprived of the truth, and revived
the sect of Artemon 6 who had headed it many years before, but which
had been snuffed out.

1,5 Paul claims that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 7 is one God,
but that God’s Word and Spirit are always in him, just as a man’s own
word is in his heart. (6) The Son of God is not an entity but is within God
himself — just what Sabellius, Navatus, Noetus and others have said. Still,
Paul does not say the same as they, but something different. (7) The Word
came, dwelt in Jesus who was a man, < and after doing his work ascended
to the Father again* >. (8) And therefore, Paul says, God is one. The Father

1 The most significant ancient accounts are collected at Loots, Paulus von Samosata.
Most derive ultimately from the Epistle of the Council of Antioch which deposed Paul
in 268, and the Hypomnemata, or minutes of the debate between Paul and the presbyter
Malchio which was held at that council. Notable are Eus. H. E. 5.28.1-2; the fifth century
monk Leontius’ Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, Appendix to Book III; and the Scholia
of Leontius preserved in Theodore, De Spermatis, PG 1213D-1216B. Though Epiphanius
has read Eusebius, his information appears to be independent of the Council of Antioch.
It may be oral, and represent the sort of thing the Paulianists of his own day were saying.

2 I.e., the successor of Navatus and Origen.

3 Wisd Sol 2:24.

4 Wisd Sol 4:12.

5 Eusebius mentions Probus’ having been made emperor after Aurelian, HE. 7.30.22.

6 Cf. Eus. H. E. 5.28.1. As other authorities say “Artemas,” and Eusebius himself says
Artemon only here, it is probable that Epiphanius is using Eusebius at this point.

7 Contrast Loofs p. 85 (Leontius, Scholia), “Paul did not say that the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit are the same. He said that the Father is God the creator of all, the Son is the
mere man, and the Holy Spirit is the grace which was present in the apostles.”

PAUL THE SAMOSATLAN

217

is not a father, the Son is not a son, and the Holy Spirit is not a holy spirit,
but there is one God, the Father, and his Son in him like a word in a man.
(9) Paul supposedly finds his heresy in the following texts: the words of
Moses, “The Lord is thy God, the Lord is one.” 8 (10) But he does not claim,
as Noetus did, that the Father suffered. He says, “The Word came, acted
alone, 9 and returned to the Father.” And there is a great deal of absurdity
in this teaching.

2.1 But let’s see whether the deluded man’s own words can be proved.
For he reminds us that Christ said, “I am in the Father and the Father in
me.” 10 (2) Now we ourselves say that the divine Word is of the Father,
and is with him eternally and begotten of him, but we do not speak of the
Father without a subsistent Word. (3) On the contrary, the Father’s Word
is the only-begotten Son, the divine Word, as he says, “Whosoever shall
confess me, him will I confess before my Father.” * 11 And by saying, “me”
before “my Father,” he showed that the Father is truly subsistent, < and
that the Son is truly subsistent also* >.

2,4 These people, with their covert introduction of Judaism, have noth-
ing more to say than the Jews do. They must be termed neo-Jews, and
Samosatians, nothing but an alleged [Christianity] in name < and > sup-
position. (5) By denying the God [begotten] of God, the only-begotten
Son and the Word, they have become like those who denied him when he
was here — God’s murderers, the murderers of the Lord, and the deniers
of God. Actually, however, < they are neither Christians nor Jews* >, since
they do not have circumcision or keep the Sabbath, but < hold* > Jewish
< views* > on everything else.

3.1 Now we too, in fact, maintain that there are not two Gods or God-
heads, but one Godhead. For since we say that there are not two Fathers,
two Sons or two Holy Spirits, but a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, < we
speak oP > one Godhead < and* > one glory. (2) Paul, however, does not
call the Father the only God because he is the source [of the Trinity].
When he < says that he > is the only God, he is doing his best to deny the
divinity and reality of the Son and the Holy Spirit. He holds instead that
the Father is one God who has begotten no Son, (3) so that there are the
two Imperfects, a Father and a Son — the Father who has not begotten

8 Deut 6:4.

9 Loots, Holl povov, Bardy, Diekamp, MSS povoi;.

10 John 14:10.

11 Matt 10:32.

2l8

PAUL THE SAMO SATIAN

a Son, and the Word of the living God and true Wisdom who is not the
fruit 12 [of the Father].

3.4 For they believe that the Word is like the word in a human heart,
and the sort of wisdom everyone has in his human soul if God has given
him understanding. 13 They therefore say that God, together with his Word,
is one Person, just as a man and his word are one. As I said, they believe
no more than the Jews do but are blind to the truth, and deaf to the divine
word and the message of eternal life.

3.5 For they do not respect the Gospel’s true saying, “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All
things were made through him, and without him was not anything made
that was made.” 14 (6) For if the Word was in the beginning and the Word
was with God, his existence is not just as an utterance but as an entity.
And if the Word was with God, the One he was with is not the Word — for
the One he was with is not a word. For if God [merely] has a word in his
heart, and if he does not have a Word he has begotten, how can “was,”
and “The Word was God,” mean anything? (7) A man’s word is not a man
with a man, for it is neither alive nor subsistent. It is only a movement of
a living, subsistent heart, 15 and not an entity. It is spoken, and is at once
no longer existent, although it stays said. 16 (8) But < this is not the case
with* > God’s Word, as the Holy Spirit says by the mouth of the prophet,
“Thy word endureth forever .” 17 And in agreement with this the evangelist
says — confessing that God has been made manifest and come, but not
including the Father in the incarnation of the Word — (g) “The Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us.” 18 And he didn’t say, ‘The Word-and-
Father was made flesh.” And he also says, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” 19 — not, The Word
was in God.”

4,1 And lest people ill-advisedly alter the words of life and light to their
own disadvantage and harm, and suppose — “From his youth the heart

12 Conjectural rendering of axapnov.

13 Cf. Loofs pp. 77-78 (Leontius Contra Nestorianos), “For wisdom was in the prophets,
and more so in Moses, and more so in Christ, as in a temple of God.”

14 John 1:1; 3.

15 Hiibner and MSS eyei, xod ou YEyEvvv]pEvov, Holl < npoipEpopsvov povov >Kai ol . . .

16 Hiibner and MSS XaXoupEvop Siapevei, HolkacptmiJsTOii xod ou> SiapEVEi.

17 Cf. Ps 118:89.

18 John 1:14.

19 John 13 .

PAUL THE SAMOSATLAN

2ig

of man is bent on the pursuit” of one sort of “evil” 20 or another. (2) Sup-
pose they begin to argue, “As you say yourself, John didn’t say, ‘The Word
was in God,’ but ‘The Word was with God.’ 21 Therefore the Word is not
of the Father’s essence but outside of God.” [If they say this] the truth
turns around to set her sons straight and confound the ideas that are
unfaithful to her, (3) and the Only-begotten himself says, "I came forth
from the Father and am come 22 — and again, "I am in the Father and the
Father in me.” 23

4,4 But for our understanding of the proof, the One < who speaks >
of the Son in the prophets stoops to human weakness — not < by > bear-
ing physical burdens but < by > providing understandable words — and
< proves > in terms familiar to us that the Son is truly begotten of him,
God of God, very God of very God, not outside of him but of his essence.
(5) And so he says in David, “Before the morning star have I begotten
thee from the womb,” 24 as the Seventy rendered it. And in the words of
the other versions — Aquila: “The dew of thy youth is of the womb of the
morning”; Symmachus: “As in the dewy dawn is thy youth”; Theodotion:
“From the womb, from the dawn of thy youth”; the fifth version: “From the
womb, from the dawn is thy dew in thy youth”; the sixth: “From the womb
they seek thee, dew of thy vigor.” 25 (6) But in the Hebrew it is merem mes-
saar laktal ieldecheth , 26 which plainly and unambiguously means, “From
the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee.” For merem is
“< from > the womb,” and messaar means, “before the earliest dawn,” or
in other words, “before the morning star.” Laktal is “and before the dew”;
ieldecheth is "child,” or in other words, “I have begotten thee.” (7) And so
you are to learn from the verse that the subsistent divine Word was actu-
ally begotten of the Father, without beginning and not in time, before
anything existed.

4,8 For by the star he did not mean just the morning star — though
indeed there are many stars and the sun and moon, and they were made
on the fourth day of creation. (And the sea, the trees and their fruit had
been created earlier — and the firmament and earth and heaven, and

20 Gen 8:21.

21 John 13.

22 John 16:28.

23 John 14:10.

24 Ps 109:3.

25 This is almost exactly as at Origen, Hexapla, ed. Field, Vol. II, p. 266.

26 Cf. Ps 110:3, Hebrew.

220

PAUL THE SAMO SATIAN

the angels, who were created together with these. (9) For if angels had
not been created together with heaven and earth, God would not have
told Job, “When the stars were brought forth, all the angels praised me
aloud.”) 27 (10) And so < he wrote* >, "before the morning star,” meaning,
“before anything was in existence and had been created.” For the Word
was always with the Father: “Through him all things were made, and with-
out him was not anything made.” 28

5,1 But someone might say, “You’ve shown that the angels were before
the stars, but you’ve said they were created together with heaven and
earth. Tell us, how have you proved this? Weren’t they, surely, created
before heaven and earth? For scripture nowhere indicates the time of the
angels’ creation. (2) And that you have shown that they were before the
stars, < is perfectly plain >. For if they weren’t, how could they sing God’s
praises for the creation of the stars?

5,3 I cannot give the answer to any question from my own reasonings,
but I can from the text of the scriptures. (4) The word of God makes it
perfectly clear that the angels were not created after the stars, and that
they were not created before heaven and earth; for the statement that
there were no creatures before heaven and earth is plainly a firm one.
For “God made the heaven and the earth in the beginning ," 29 because this
is the beginning of < the > creation and < there are > no created things
before it.

5,5 And so, as I have indicated, the word in a man cannot be called a
man, but a man’s word. But if the Word of God is God, it is not a word
with no subsistence but a subsistent divine Word, begotten of God with-
out beginning and not in time: (6) for “The Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of an only-begotten
of a Father, full of grace and truth.” 30 John testified to him and cried out,
“This is he of whom 1 said unto you, He that cometh after me is preferred
before me, for he was before me.” 31 “He came into the world, that through
him the world might be saved.” 32 “He was in the world, and the world was
made by him, and the world knew him not.” 33

27 Job 38:7.

28 John 1:3.

29 Gen 1:1.

30 John 1:14.

31 John 1:15.

32 Cf. John 3:17.

33 John 1:10.

PAUL THE SAMOSATLAN

221

5.7 Do you see that the Word is only-begotten? Do you see that he came
into the world among men, yet with the full “glory of the only-begotten
of a Father?” 34 It is not as though the Father is a Word, or that he has
appeared as a Father in combination with a Word, like a man appearing
with his word, < where > his word cannot even appear in the absence of
the word’s speaker.

5.8 Now then, whom should I believe? With whom should I agree?
From whose teachings am I to receive life? From the holy, inspired evan-
gelists, who have said that the Word was sent from the Father? Or from
these disciples of Paul the Samosatian, who claim that God is combined
with the Word and the Word with God, and declare that there is one
Person — [the person] of the Father including the Word and the person
of the Word including the Father? (9) If there is [only] one Person, how
can the one send and the other be sent? For the prophet says, “He shall
send forth his Word and melt them; he shall breathe forth his Spirit, and
the waters shall flow” 35 — and again, “I came forth from the Father and am
come,” 36 and, “I live, and the Father that sent me liveth in me.” 37

5,10 Now how can the One who has been sent be sent, and appear in
flesh? “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, which
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” 38 And he says, “the
only-begotten God.” The Word is begotten of the Father but the Father
was not begotten — hence, “only-begotten God.”

6,1 For the safety of our souls the divine knowledge proclaimed its own
truth beforehand, because of its precognition, ft knew the Samosatian’s
nonsense, the Arians’ heresy, the villainy of the Anomoeans, the fall of the
Manichaeans, and the mischief of the rest of the sects. (2) And therefore
the divine message makes us certain of every expression. It does not call
the Father “only-begotten”; how can One who has never been begotten be
“only-begotten?” But it calls the Son “only-begotten,” to avoid the supposi-
tion that the Son is a Father, and the comparison of the divine Word with
a word in a human heart.

6,3 For if he is called a “Word,” he is so called for this purpose: to keep
it from being supposed that he is different from the essence of God the
Father. And because of the expressions, “only-begotten, full of grace and

34 John 1:14.

35 Ps 147:7.

36 John 16:28.

37 Cf. John 6:57.

38 John 1:18.

222

PAUL THE SAMO SATIAN

truth,” 39 he cannot be a word without subsistence, but must be an entity.
(4) And you see how much there is to make our salvation sure. “No man
hath seen God at any time” is a statement of the Father’s invisibility and
Godhead; but < “only-begotten God” > 40 affirms the manifesation of his
Godhead through the flesh.

6,5 But how many other texts, and more, might one select in our sup-
port and to counter the Samosatian’s stupidity? If the Word was in the
Father like the word in a human heart, why did he come here and become
visible in his own person? (6) To describe himself to his disciples he says,
“He that seen me hath seen the Father.” 41 And he didn’t say, “I am the
Father”; “me” means that < he himself is an entity in the Father* >. (7) And
he didn’t say, “I am he,” but, “I am come in my Father’s name, and it is he
that beareth witness of me.” 42

6,8 And again, he says of the Holy Spirit, “
and he shall send you another Advocate.” 43 See how < he says >, “he shall
send,” "another,” < and > “I,” to show that the Father is an entity, < the Son
is an entity >, and the Holy Spirit is an entity, (g) For besides saying, “He
shall glorify me,” of the Holy Spirit, he [also] < says >, “He shall receive of
mine.” 44 And what is he talking about? The Spirit who proceeds from the
Father and receives of “me.”

6,10 Moreover, he says, “Two testimonies of men will be established,
and I bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness
of me.” 45 (11) But how many other texts of the kind, and more than these,
< can one find* >? Look here! He says, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (12) Even so, Father: for so it
seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father:
and no man knoweth the Son save the Father: neither knoweth any man
the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” 46
“Thou hast revealed them unto babes” and, "All things are delivered unto
me of my Father” are said to uproot the strange doctrine which has been
invented by these people.

39 John 1:14.

40 John 1:18.

41 John 14:9.

42 John 5:43; 57.

43 John 14:16.

44 John 16:14.

45 Cf. John 8:17-18.

46 Matt 11:25-27.

PAUL THE SAMOSATLAN

223

7,1 But see what men’s perennial opponent, the devil, has spawned
in them, as though by the diabolic inspiration of their speech. (2) For
because of the holy Gospels’ plain statement of the their teaching, the
flunkies of the sect of Jews are ashamed of this and, not to seem entirely
at odds with the true knowledge of the Gospel, supposedly defend them-
selves against these charges. (3) They say, “Jesus was a man, and yet God’s
Word inspired him from on high, 47 and the man says these things about
himself. The Father together with the Son is one God, but the man makes
his own person known below, and in this sense there are two persons.” 48

7,4 Now how can a man be God, you stupidest man in the world, with
your mind turned away from the heavenly doctrine? How can someone
who says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” 49 be a mere man, 50
as you claim? (5) If the man is like the Father, the Father is not differ-
ent from the man. If, however, the divine Word, who is perfect and has
become perfect man, is God begotten of the Father on high, then he is
speaking clearly and correctly of himself when he says, “He that hath seen
me hath seen the Father.” (6) And the Jews say the same of him. “Not
only did they seek to kill him,” says the scripture, “because he did these
things, but because he said he was the Son of God, claiming equality with
God.” 51 (7) For once more, in saying, “He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father,” 52 he is claiming that God the Father is his equal. Now a man is
not equal to God or like God; but < the One who > is truly begotten of God
the Father is God the only-begotten Son.

7,8 For Paul says of him, “who being in the form of God thought it not
robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant.” 53 (g) < By* > “He was in the form
< of God* >,” < Paul gave indication of > his Godhead; but as to the form of

47 Cf. Loofs p. 79 (Leontius, Contra Nestorianos), “What does he mean by saying that
the constitution of Jesus Christ is different from ours? As we maintain, he differs from us in
one way — although it is of the utmost importance — that the divine Word is in him what
the inner man is in ourselves . . .”

48 This is somewhat comparable to Loofs pp. 84-85 (Theodore’s Scholion from Leon-
tius), “Paul the Samosatian did not say that the self-subsistent Word had entered into
Christ. He said that the word was the bidding and commandment, that is, the Father com-
manded what he would through that man, and performed it.”

49 John 14:9.

50 Cf. Loofs p. 64 (Formula Macrostichus of Sardica), “The followers of Paul the Samo-
satian deny that Christ was God before the ages, and say that later, after the incarnation,
deification by promotion came to him who had been a mere man."

51 Cf. John 5:18.

52 John 14:9.

53 Phil 2:6-7.

224

PAUL THE SAMO SATIAN

the servant, he made it clear that this was something added to him, and
did not say that this had ever been < native > to him.

7, ro Our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Word, often commu-
nicates with us even in a human way, and frequently speaks in terms of
human experience, (rr) 54 but not when he says, “I came forth from my
Father and am come”; 55 this cannot be the utterance of human nature.
(r2) When, however, he rightly testifies, “If I bear record of myself my
record is not true,” 56 this is meant to show his humanity. When, on the
other hand, he testifies of his Godhead, Though I bear record of myself,
yet my record is true,” 57 this is to show that his divine nature is true divine
nature, and his human nature true human nature.

8, r And so there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers.
And the subsistence of the Word is not eliminated, since there is not one
[mere] combination of the Son’s Godhead with the Father. For the Son
is not of an essence different from the Father, but of the same essence as
the Father. He cannot be of an essence different from his Begetter’s or of
the identical essence; he is of the same essence as the Father. 58

8,2 Nor, again, do we say that he is not the same in essence as the
Father; the Son is the same as the Father in Godhead and essence. And
he is not of another sort than the Father, nor of a different subsistence;
he is truly the Father’s Son in essence, subsistence and truth. (3) But the
Father is not the Son; and the Son is not the Father, but truly a Son begot-
ten of a Father. Thus there are not two Gods, two Sons, or two Holy Spirits;
the Trinity is one Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and co-essential.
(4) For when you say, "of the same essence,” < you > do not mean an iden-
tification. “Co-essential” does not indicate one [single] thing; neither does
it differentiate the true Son’s essence from his lawful Father’s and, because
of the co-essentiality, distinguish his nature [from the Father’s].

8,5 For sacred scripture does not proclaim two first principles, but
one; it says, ‘The house of Judah shall join with the house of Israel, and
they shall agree upon one first principle” (apxqv) 59 Therefore whoever
preaches two first principles, preaches two Gods; and whoever denies the
Word and his subsistence reveals his Judaism. (6) Marcion intimates that

54 This is paragraph 12 in Holl’s numbering, which omits paragraph 11.

55 John 16:28.

56 Cf. John 8:13.

57 John 8:14.

58 ETspoouaioi;, TauTooucrios, opoouatop.

59 Hos 2:2.

PAUL THE SAMOSATLAN

225

there are two first principles — or rather, three — in opposition to each
other. But these neo-Jews, these Samosatians, do away with the subsis-
tence of the Word, showing that they too are murderers of the Lord and
deniers of our Lord’s salvation.

8,7 Thus there is one first principle and the Son [begotten] of it — its
exact image, by nature the replica of his Father, and like him in every
way. For he is God of God and the Son of the Father, very God of very
God and light of light, one Godhead and one dignity. (8) Thus scripture
says, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” 60 So as not to
divide it does not say, “in thine image”; so as not to imply unlikeness and
inequality it does not say, “in my image”; it says, “in our image.” And “let
us make” is said to show that the Father is not strange to his creatures,
nor the Only-begotten strange to creation, (g) The Father creates with
the Son, and the Son, through whom all things were made, is co-creator
with the Father. And since the Son is begotten of the Father there is one
Son, the perfect Son of a perfect Father; and there is a perfect Father of
a perfect Son, who is in the image of his Father’s perfection. [He is] “the
image of the invisible God” 61 — not the model of an image, not the image
of an image, not unlike the Father, but the Father’s image, showing the
exact likeness [to the Father] of his true generation from him who has no
beginning and is not in time.

8,10 Thus the Son is the image of the Father. It is the same with emper-
ors. Because the emperor has an image there are not two emperors; there
is one emperor, with his image. [And] there is one God. He is not one
imperfect thing, made of two parts; the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect,
the Holy Spirit is perfect. (11) For < the Son does > not < say >, “I am in the
Father,” 62 as a word is in a man’s heart; we know a knowing Father with
a Son, and a Son begotten of a Father. (r2) The divine message < does >
not < declare > that a Word entered a man for a dwelling, appeared in him
after his birth, and is on high in God once more, like a word in a human
heart. This is the product of demon’s madness and bears the marks of all
denial of God.

9,1 because I believe that these few remarks
which I have made about this sect will do. Their power is not formidable,
or such that it cannot be overcome by all wise persons. (2) And we have

60 Gen 1:26.

61 Col 1:15.

62 Cf. John 10:38.

226

MANICHAEANS

now uprooted Paul’s thorns by preaching the doctrine of the truth, have,
as it were, quenched his poison, and pointed out the deadliness of it. Call-
ing for aid on the Father with the Son — on the truly existent God and the
truly subsistent Son he has begotten, and on his Holy Spirit, who subsists
as a Spirit — (3) and < arming ourselves* > with the salvation of the work
of the incarnate Christ, we have broken the van of this assault of the neo-
Jews with the sign of our victory over death, I mean the cross. Let us go
on to the rest, beloved.

9,4 For there is a viper called the dryinas which is like this heresiarch.
It is said that a dryinas is a viper, and that its den is very often near grass
or, also, oaks. This is why it is called a dryinas — from its preference for
trees, and its camouflaging of itself among the fallen leaves with the color
of each leaf. (5) The beast does not have a particularly painful bite, but
if it remains [undetected] it causes death. (6) In the same way this man,
with his sect, pretends to belong to the faithful by bearing Christ’s name
while adopting Jewish doctrine. He confesses that Christ is the Word but
does not believe that he is; and he is not ashamed to make a parade of
himself in many ways. 63 (7) But now that we have trampled his seeming
doctrine, which is actually imposture, with the sandal of Christ, and have
scratched the victims of his bites with the healing scalpel of the Gospel
and drawn the poison out of them, we shall go on to describe the rest,
beloved, as I said.

Against Manichaeans. * 1 46, but 66 of the series

1,1 The Manichaeans < are > also called Acvanites after a veteran from Mes-
opotamia named Acvas 2 who practiced the profession of the pernicious
Mani at Eleutheropolis. (2) They began to preach to the world at that
time, and brought a great evil on the world after the < sect > of Sabellius.

63 Paul’s ostentatious behavior is described at Eus. H. E. 7.30.8-11; Epiphanius may be
alluding to this passage. See also the Epistle of the Council of Antioch, 268 ad, translated
at Loofs pp. 4-9.

1 Epiphanius’ chief literary source for this sect is the Acta disputationis Archelai cum
Manete. At 23,3 he mentions eight other anti-Manichaean works, of which he has very likely
used Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeum and possibly some others. 12,4, 21,4 and espe-
cially 36,4 show that he and his acquaintances had personal contact with Manichaeans.

2 For Zaco, one of Mani’s early disciples who died about 301 ad., see Asmussen p. 106
(M 6, Parthian: MM III pp. 865-867) and pp. 31-32 (M 6, Parthian, MM III pp. 865-867,
Cat. p. 2); Fihrist al-‘Ulum at Flugel, Mani p. 104. However, Acvas might simply have been
a local Manichean missionary at Eleutheropolis.

MANICHAEANS

227

For they arose in the time of the emperor Aurelian, about the fourth year
of his reign 3 (3) This sect is widely reported and is talked of in many parts
of the world, and as I said, owes its worldwide spread to a man named
Mani.

1,4 Mani was from Persia, and was originally named Cubricus. But
he changed his name to Mani (Mdvv]) 4 to call himself mad, I suspect by
God’s providence. (5) And as he thought, he was calling himself “vessel,”
in Babylonian 5 if you please; “vessel” (ftdvv]) translated from Babylonian to
Greek, suggests the name. But as the truth shows, he was named for the
madness which caused the wretch to propagate his heresy in the world.

1,6 Cubricus was the slave of a widow who had died childless and left
him an incalculable wealth of gold, silver, spices and other goods. (7) She
herself had inherited the property from a Terbinthus who had also been
a slave, whose name had been changed to “Buddha,” 6 in Assyrian. And
Terbinthus himself had been the slave of a Scythianus, 7 who was a Saracen
but had been brought up on the borders of Palestine, that is, in Arabia.

1,8 Scythianus had been taught the language and literature of the
Greeks there, and had become proficient in their futile worldly doctrines.
(9) But he made continual business trips to India, and did a great deal of
trading. And so he acquired worldly goods 8 and as he traveled through the
Thebaid 9 — there are various harbors on the Red Sea, (10) at the different
gateways to the Roman realm. One of these is at Aelan — Aelon in sacred

3 Epiphanius’ information comes from Eusebius by way of Jerome’s Chronicle, 223,25.
Jerome dates Mani from the time of “Aurelian and Probus,” as do Act. Arch. 31,8; Cyr. Cat.
6.20, and Epiphanius himself at 19,9; 20,3, 78,1.

4 Cf. Act. Arch. 62-64; Cyr. Cat. 6.20-24. The scurrilous biography of Mani which fol-
lows would have been an attempt to combat the Manichaean deification of him. Contrast
Klimkeit p. 163 ( A Bema Liturgy, Persian and Parthian) “We would praise the God, Mani,
the Lord! We honor thy great, bright glory, we bow down before thy Holy Spirit,” with
Cyr. Cat. 6.6, which asks if anyone would wish to worship such a disreputable person, and
Mani's life as described in CMC.

5 Mani describes himself as “a man of Babylon” at Asmussen pp. 8-9 (M 4,2 V, Parthian:
HR II, pp. 51-52); M 566 I, Parthian: HR II, p. 87.

6 Cf. Act. Arch. 63.2; Cyr. Cat. 6.23. “Buddha” is named with Zoroaster and Jesus as one
of the three apostles who preceded Mani, Keph. 7,34; 12,15 et al.

7 Cf. Act Arch. 62.2-7; Cyr. Cat. 6.22.

8 Manichaean writings often use the metaphor of a merchant with a wealth of goods.
E.g., Keph. 11,18-20, “like a merchant who comes from [a country] with the doubling of his
large cargo and the wealth of his goods.”

9 With Holl, Drexl we leave the clause before the parenthesis incomplete. Oehler,
Dummer punctuate after auTov, giving better grammar but a rather un-Epiphanian
sentence.

228

MANICHAEANS

scripture. It was perhaps there that Solomon’s ship arrived every three
years, bringing gold, elephant’s tusks, spices, peacocks and the rest, (n)
Another harbor is at Castrum in Clysma, and another is the northernmost,
at a place called Bernice. Goods are brought to the Thebaid by way of this
port called Bernice, and the various kinds of merchandise from India are
either distributed there in the Thebaid or to Alexandria by way of the river
Chrysorroes — I mean the Nile, which is called Gihon in the scriptures —
and to all of Egypt as far as Pelusium. (12) And this is how merchants
from India who reach the other lands by sea make trading voyages to the
Roman Empire.

2,1 I have been at pains to convey this in full detail for your informa-
tion, so that those who care to read this will not go uninformed even of
the remote causes of every affair. For whoever embarks on a narrative
must start it the best way he can, and introduce it from the very begin-
ning. This is how the truth comes to light too, (2) and even though the
speaker has no command of polished speech and elegant language the
wise will still be told what they should be by the truthful account.

2,3 To begin with, then, Scythianus was puffed up by his great wealth,
and his possessions of spices and other goods from India. (4) And in trav-
eling over the Thebaid to a town called Hypsele, he found a woman there
who was extremely depraved though of evident beauty, and made a deep
impression on his stupidity. Taking her from the brothel — she was a pros-
titute — he grew fond of the woman and set her free, and she became his
wife. 10 (5) After a long while, because of the extreme luxury in his posses-
sion, nothing would do the sinner but that, like an idle person accustomed
to evil by the extreme wantonness of his luxury, he must finally think of
something new, in keeping with his taste, to offer the world. (6) And out of
his own head he made up some such words as these — for he did not take
them from the sacred scripture and the utterance of the Holy Spirit, but
said, on the basis of wretched human reasoning, (7) “What is the reason
for the inequalities * 11 throughout the visible vault of creation — black and
white, flushed and pale, wet and dry, heaven and earth, night and day, soul
and body, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous — unless, surely, these

10 Cf. Act. Arch. 62.4. The story comes from the heresiologists’ account of Simon Magus,
cf. Iren. 1.23.2; Epiph. Pan 21,22 et al.

11 Klimkeit pp. 273-274 (Uighur Chuashtuanift): “If we... should have called him the
origin and root of Light as well as Darkness, and of God as well as the Devil; If we should
have said, ‘If anybody quickens, it is God that quickens; if anybody slays, it is God that
slays . .

MANICHAEANS

229

things originate from two roots, or two principles?” 12 (8) But to employ
him for further warfare against the human race, the devil spawned the
horrid supposition in his mind that non-being does not know being. 13 This
was meant to start a war in the minds of the dupes who believe that there
is something more than ffim Who Is, and that all things are products of
two roots, 14 as it were, or two principles. This [last] is the most impious
and unsound idea of all.

2,9 But I shall speak of this another time. Scythianus, whose mind was
blind about these things, took his cue from Pythagoras 15 and held such
beliefs, and composed four books of his own. 16 He called one the Book
of the Mysteries 17 the second the Book of the Summaries, 18 the third the
Gospel 19 and the fourth the Treasury. 20 (io) In them he contrasted and
< exhibited* > the personae, in every respect perfectly balanced and evenly
matched, < of the > two principles. Pathetically he supposed and imagined
that he had made a great discovery about this. And he had indeed discov-
ered a great evil, for himself and the people he misleads.

3,1 Scythianus was busy with this, but had heard how the prophets and
the Law spoke prophetically of the creation of the world, of the one, sover-
eign, everlasting Father who will have no end, and of his Son and the Holy
Spirit. (2) Since he lived in greater luxury [than they], made fun of them in
his boorish mind, and was egged on by the haughty arrogance within him
he chose to travel to Jerusalem, 21 about the apostles’ time, (3) and dispute
there, if you please, with the preachers of < God’s > sovereignty and the
[creation of] God’s creatures.

3,4 On his arrival the unfortunate man began to challenge the elders
there — who were living by the legislation which God had given to Moses
and < confirmed* > by the inspired teaching of every prophet — (5) with,

12 Cf. CMC 132,11-13, "I showed them the distinction between the two natures.”

13 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 1.17, “That very writing from which we have produced the doc-
trines of Manes says that (the powers of darkness) neither knew that God was living in
the light . . .”

14 Cf Keph. 35.34, “(The first Father) is the root of all the lights.”

15 Scythianus’ teachings are identified as Pythagorean at Act. Arch. 62.3.

16 Keph. 5,22-25, “I have written in my books of light; in the Great Gospel and the
Treasury of Life, and the Pragmateia and the Book of the Mysteries, the scripture I have
written for the Parthians, as well as all the Epistles, and the ‘Psalms and Praises.’ ” And cf.
Act. Arch. 62.3; Cyr Cat 6.22.

17 This is called “Mysteries of Wisdom” at Man. Horn. 43.17.

18 The Kephalaia, rediscovered by Carl Schmidt in 1929.

19 CMC 66,4-70,9 are a long excerpt from the Gospel.

20 This is called the Treasury of Life at Keph. 230,20-22.

21 Act. Arch. 62.7; Cyr. Cat 6.22.

230

MANICHAEANS

“How can you say that God is one, if he made night and day, flesh and
soul, dry and wet, heaven and earth, darkness and light?” 22 (6) They gave
him a plain explanation — the truth is no secret — but he was not ashamed
to contradict them. And though he could not achieve his aim, he still
behaved with stubborn shamelessness.

3,7 But since he met with no success but was worsted instead, he pro-
duced an illusion with the magic books he owned. (He was a sorcerer too,
and had obtained the horrid, pernicious arts of magic from the heathen
wisdom of the Indians and Egyptians.) (8) < For > he went up on a house-
top and conjured, 23 but still achieved nothing — instead he fell off the roof
and ended his life. 24 He had lived in Jerusalem for some years.

3,9 He had had just one disciple with him, 25 the Terbinthus we men-
tioned earlier. He had entrusted his possessions to this disciple, as to a
very faithful servant who obeyed him with a good will. (10) When Scythi-
anus died Terbinthus buried him with all kindness but once he had buried
him planned not to return to the woman, the former harlot or captive who
had been married to Scythianus. Instead he took all the property, the gold,
the silver and the rest, (n) and fled to Persia. And to escape detection he
changed his name as I have said, and called himself Buddha 26 instead of
Terbinthus.

3,12 For his evil inheritance he in his turn obtained Scythianus’ four
books and his implements of magic and conjuring — for he too was very
well educated. (13) In Persia he lodged with an elderly widow and in his
turn debated about the two principles with the attendants and priests of
the idol of Mithra, with a prophet named Parcus, and with Labdacus, but
< accomplished nothing* >. Since he could not even dispute with the pro-
moters of idolatry but was refuted by them and disgraced, (14) he went up
on the housetop with the same intention as Scythianus — to work magic, if
you please, so that no one could answer his arguments. But he was pulled

22 Cf. Keph. 267,13-18, "All ugly evils and defilements, archons and demons, witches and
Satans have said that they come from God and that it is he who made them . . . they do not
come from him, and they are bearing false witness against him.”

23 At CMC 138,9-13 one of Mani’s opponents, the head of a synagogue, attempts to cast
spells against Mani.

24 Like Scythianus’ marriage, this detail is influenced by the Christian account of Simon
Magus. Cf. Epiph. Pan. 21,5,2.

25 Act. Arch. 63.4, “no disciple having joined him except an old woman”.

26 Act. Arch. 63.1-2; Cyr. Cat. 6.22.

MANICHAEANS

231

down by an angel and fell, and so died from the same magic that he had
intended to work. 27

3,15 The old woman saw to his burial, and came into possession of his
property. Having no children or relatives, she remained alone for a long
while. (16) But later she purchased Cubricus, or Mani, to wait on her. And
when she died 28 she left the evil inheritance to him, like poison left by an
asp, for the ruin and destruction of many.

4,1 In his turn Cubricus, who had taken the name Mani, lived in the
same place and conducted discussions there. And no one believed him;
everyone who heard Mani’s teaching was annoyed, and rejected it for its
novelty, shocking stories, and empty imposture. 29 (2) Seeing the defeat of
his own mischievous formularies, the feather-brain looked for some way
of proving the truth of this dreadful fabrication of his. 30

4,3 It was rumored that the son of the king of Persia had fallen victim
to some disease and was confined to his bed in the capital city of Persia —
Mani did not live there, but in another place, a long way from the capital.
(4) Blinded by his own wickedness, and thinking that he might be able
to perform cures on the king’s son from the books he had acquired of
Scythianus’ successor, his own master Terbinthus or Buddha, Mani left
his place of residence and ventured to introduce himself, claiming that
he could be of service. 31

4,5 But though he administered various drugs to the king’s ailing child,
his expectation was disappointed. The boy finally died under his ministra-
tions, to the confusion of all empty claims falsely made. 32 (6) After this
outcome, Mani was imprisoned by royal decree. 33 (7) (The kings of Persia
do not execute persons guilty of major crimes at once; they find ways

27 Act. Arch. 63.4-6.

28 Act. Arch. 63.1-4; Cyr. Cat. 6.24.

29 CMC 87,6-90,7 chronicles sharp hostility to Mani's teachings on the part of the "bap-
tists” with whom he broke. Keph. 186,25-187,25 tells of a series of rejections of Mani in
various lands.

30 At CMC 36,13-21 Mani prays, “[And] further, that the church may grow, I [beg of thee
all the] power of [the signs], that I may perform [them] by my hands, [in] every [place,
and all villages] and towns.”

31 At CMC 121,11-123,13 Mani heals a sick girl. Cf. Asmussen p. 9 (M 566 1 , Parthian: HR II,
p. 87) where he performs what appears to be the same healing before the king of Persia.

32 At Asmussen p. 54 (M 3, Middle Persian, W. B. Henning, “Mani’s Last Journey,”
BSOAS 10, 1942, pp. 949-952) Bahram I accuses Mani, “But perhaps you are needed for
this doctoring and this physicking? And you don’t even do that!”

33 At Man. Horn. 48,19-25 Mani is loaded with chains and threatened. Man. Ps. 18, so-
igne says that the imprisonment lasted 26 days.

232

MANICHAEANS

of inflicting a further sentence of death, by torture, on those who are
[already] faced with that threat.) 34 And so much for that.

5,1 Thus Mani, or Cubricus, remained < in > conhnement, visited by
his own disciples. (2) For by now the scum had gathered a band, as it
were, already about twenty-two, 35 whom he called disciples. (3) He chose
three 36 of these, one named Thomas, 37 and Hermeias, and Addas, 38 with
the intention < of sending them to Judaea* >. 39 For he had heard of the
sacred books to be found in Judaea and the world over — I mean < the >
Christian books, the Law and Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles.

5,4 Giving his disciples money, he sent them to Jerusalem. (5) (But he
had done this before his imprisonment, when he found himself unable
to sustain his doctrine in discussion with many. (6) Having heard of the
name of Christ, and of his disciples, I mean the Christians, he had deter-
mined to deceive his dupes with the name of the Christian religion.)

5,7 They went off and purchased the books, for they made no delay.
But when, on their return, they found Mani no longer at liberty but in the
prison, they entered even that and showed him the books. (8) He took and
examined them, and fraudulently combined his own falsehood with the
truth wherever he found the form of a word, or a name, which could show
a resemblance to this doctrine. In this way he finally provided confirma-
tion for the sham of his sect.

5,9 In the meantime, however, he escaped by importuning his jailer
and bribing him heavily, 40 and he left Persia, and arrived at the Roman
realm. (10) But when he reached the border between Mesopotamia and
Persia 41 and was still in the desert, he heard of an eminent man named
Marcellus 42 who was famous for piety of the finest sort and lived in the

34 At CMC 100,1-12 Mani is beaten, though by the “baptists” rather than the king.

35 Act. Arch. 64.4 mentions only the three named at Pan. 66,5,3; Aug. Haer. 46.8 gives
Mani twelve disciples. The number 22 may come from Act. Arch. 14.2, where Mani brings
22 disciples to Marcellus’ home.

36 CMC 106,7-23 gives Mani three original disciples, named Simeon, Abizachaeus and
Patticius. Cf. Cyr. Cat. 6.31.

37 A division of the Manichaean Psalms, Allberry pp. 203-227, are the “Psalms of
Thomas.”

38 Man. Ps. 235,13-14, (Allberry p. 34) “Glory to Addas, our [Lord]”; cf. CMC 165,6.

39 Act. Arch. 65.2-4; but there Mani sends for the books from prison.

40 Cf. Act. Arch. 65.7, where Mani escapes in obedience to a dream; Cyr. Cat. 6.26-27
mentions his escape without giving details.

41 At CMC 140,11-14 Mani and Patticius come to Pharat; CMC 144,4 says, “a town in
Pharat named Og[ ? ].”

42 Act. Arch. 1.1-3; 3.5-7. Cf. CMC 144,4, “In Pharat (in the town?) named Og, (there
was) a man famous for his [power] and authority.”

MANICHAEANS

233

Mesopotamian city of Caschar. 43 Marcellus was a thoroughgoing Chris-
tian and remarkable for his righteous works, and supplied the needs of
widows, the poor, orphans and the destitute.

5,11 It was Mani’s intent to attach himself to Marcellus, to gain control
of him and be able not only to rule Mesopotamia through him, but the
whole region adjacent to Syria and the Roman Empire. (12) But he sent
him a letter 44 from the boundary of the river Stranga, from a place called
Fort Arabio, by Turbo, one of his disciples, and this is what it said. Read
it, and have a look at the instrument of the fraud’s wickedness! 45

6.1 Mani, an apostle of Jesus Christ , 46 and all the saints and virgins who
are with me, to my beloved son, Marcellus: Grace, mercy, peace from God
the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Light’s right hand preserve
you from the present evil age and its mischances, and the snares of the evil
one. Amen.

6.2 L am overjoyed to hear that your love is very great, but grieved that
your faith is not in accord with the right reason. (3) L therefore feel Impelled
to send you this letter, since L am sent for the correction of the human race,
and care for those who have given themselves over to imposture and error.
(4) [L write], first for the salvation of your own soul, and then for the salvation
of those who are with you, so that you may not have an undiscerning mind,
as the guides of the simple teach, who say that good and evil are brought by
the same [God], and introduce a single first principle. (5) As l have said, they
neither distinguish nor differentiate darkness from light, good from wicked
and evil 41 and the outer man from the Inner, but never cease to confuse and
confound the one with the other.

6,6 But do you, my son, not combine the two as most men do, absurdly and
foolishly in any chance way, and ascribe them both to the God of goodness . 48
For those “whose end is nigh unto cursing ” 49 trace the beginning, end and

43 Kaskar (variously spelled) is sometimes called a city by the Arab geographers, and
sometimes a district. It was under Persian, not Roman rule. See Flugel, Mani, pp. 20-25.

44 An Epistle to Kaskar is mentioned in a list of Manichaean Epistles, Fihrist al-’Ulum,
Flugel, p. 103, Item 6.

45 This letter is quoted from Act. Arch. 5.

46 At CMC 66,4-7 Mani begins his Gospel, “I Manichaeus, apostle of Jesus Christ by
the will of Cod the Father of truth from whom I spring.” “Apostle” is his regular title in
Manichaean literature.

47 Keph. 191,1-3, “Fie shall believe, and call on him and the physician whom I have
brought, and distinguish light from darkness, good from evil.”

48 Cf. Man. Ps. 248,3-6, (Allberry p. 57) “If it was God who created the evil and the
good and Christ and Satan . . . then who sent Jesus, that he might work among the Jews
until they slew him?”

49 Cf. Heb. 6:8.

234

MANICHAEANS

father of these evils to God. (7) Neither do they believe what is said in the
Gospels by our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ himself “A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, nor, assuredly, can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. ” 50
(8) And how they dare to say that God is the maker and artificer of Satan
and his ills, is amazing to me.

6,9 And would that their vain effort stopped with this, and they did not
say that the Only-begotten, the Christ who has descended from the bosom of
the Father, was the son of a woman, Mary, born of blood and flesh and wom-
en’s ill-smelling effluent ! 51 (10) And since I have no native eloquence I shall
rest content with this, not to abuse your forbearance by writing at length, for
a considerable time, in this letter. (11) You shall know the whole when I come
to you — if, indeed, you are still tender of your salvation. For I put a noose
on no one, in the manner of the senseless [teachers] of the multitude. “Mark
what I say, ” 52 most honored son!

7,1 The most distinguished, godfearing and eminent Marcellus was
surprised and shocked when he read this letter. For as it happened, the
bishop of the town, Archelaus, was in his home with him the day the ser-
vant of God received Mani’s letter. (2) When Archelaus found what the
matter was and had read the letter, he gnashed his teeth like a roaring lion
and with godly zeal made as to rush off to where Mani was and arrest him
for a foreigner come from the barbarians, from whom he was hastening
to destroy the human race.

7,3 But Marcellus in his wisdom begged the bishop to calm down, but
told Turbo to terminate his [return] journey to Mani, [who was] at Fort
Arabio, where he would be awaiting Turbo. (This fortress is on the border
between Persia and Mesopotamia.) (4) Marcellus declined to go to Mani,
and not to compel Turbo to do so sent one of his own runners, and wrote
Mani the following letter.

50 Matt 7:18. At Keph. 17,2-9 this text is used to introduce the teaching of the two con-
trasting realms, though the verse quoted there is Luke 6:43-44. Cf. Act Arch. 15.6; Aug.
Adim. 26; Fel. 2.2; Theodoret Haer. Fab. 1.26.

51 Man. Ps. 254,23-26, (Allberry p. 52) “He was not born in a womb corrupted; not even
the mighty were counted worthy of him for him to dwell beneath their roof, that he should
be confined in a womb of a woman of low degree.”

52 2 Tim 2:7.

MANICHAEANS

235

Marcellus’ Letter to Mani 53

7,5 Greetings from the distinguished, personage, Marcellus, to Manichaeus,
who is made known by the letter. I have accepted the letter you have writ-
ten, and of my kindness extended hospitality to Turbo. But I have no way of
understanding the sense of your letter unless you come, as you promise in
your letter, and explain each point in detail. Farewell.

8.1 When Mani learned of this he thought that the absence of the
detained Turbo boded no good. (To confirm his own notion, Mani often
deceived even himself by drawing wrong conclusions). All the same, he
took the letter as an occasion for hurrying to Marcellus.

8.2 Now as well as being intelligent the bishop Archelaus had a zeal for
the faith. His advice was to have Mani executed at once, if possible — as
though he had trapped a leopard or wolf, or some other wild beast — so
that the flock would not be harmed by the onslaught of such a predator.
(3) But Marcellus asked for the < exercise > of patience, and that there
be a restrained discussion between Archelaus and Mani. (4) Archelaus,
however, < had > by now learned the whole essence of Mani’s opinion, for
Turbo had told them — him and Marcellus — all of the sect’s nonsense.

8.5 Mani teaches that there are two first principles without beginnings,
which are eternal and never cease to be, and are opposed to each other.
He names one light and good, but the other, darkness and evil, which
makes them God and the devil. 54 But sometimes he calls them both gods,
a good god and an evil god 55

8.6 All things stem and originate from these two principles. The one
principle makes all good things; the other, likewise, the evil things. In the
world the substances of these two principles are mixed together, 56 and

53 7.5 to 8,3 is quoted, in slightly expanded form, from Act. Arch. 14.

54 Asmussen p. 73 (Chuashtuanift VIII A), “(Ever) since we have recognized the true
God (and) the pure sacred doctrine, we know ‘the two principles’ (roots, origins). We know
the light principle, the realm of God, and we know the dark principle, the realm of Hell.”

55 This does not occur in any published Manichaean writing. Uighur Chuashtuanift
VIIA (Asmussen p. 72) “And if one should ever ask, ‘Who comes to the road that seduces,
to the beginning of the two poison roads (and) to the gate of Hell,’ (then) it is . . . the one
who worships the devil and addresses him as God,” perhaps suggests that some Manichae-
ans were guilty of this. Contrast Aug. Faust 21.1, “It is indeed (true) that we acknowledge
two first principles, but we call (only) one of these God, and the other matter, or, if I may
use the common parlance, the demon.”

56 Keph. 131.16-17, “They were cast in a mixture with each other, the light with the
darkness and the darkness with the light.” In NHC, light is mixed with darkness at Apocry.
Jn. 25,4.

236

MANICHAEANS

the one principle has made the body, while the soul belongs to the other.
(7) The soul in human beings, and the soul in every beast, bird, reptile
and bug is the same; and not only this, but Mani claims that the living
moisture in plants is a movement of the soul which he says is in human
beings. 57

9,r But he teaches as much other mythology when he says that who-
ever eats meat eats a soul, and is liable to the punishment of becoming
the same himself 58 — (2) becoming a pig in his own turn if he ate a pig,
or a bull, or bird, or any edible creature. Manichaeans therefore do not
eat meat. And if one plants a hg tree, an olive, a grapevine, a sycamore,
or a persea, his soul at his own death is entangled in the branches of the
trees he planted and unable to get by them. 59 (3) And if one marries a
woman, he says, he is embodied again after his departure and becomes
a woman himself, so that he may be married. (4) And if someone killed
a man his soul is returned to the body of a leper after departing the body,
or a mouse or snake 60 or else will in his own turn become something of
the kind that he killed.

9,5 Again, he claimed that since it desires < to draw up > the soul which
is dispersed in all things, God’s heavenly wisdom 61 — (6) (for he and his
Manichaean followers say that the soul is a part of God and has been
dragged away from him and < is held > as the prisoner 62 of the archons 63
of the opposing principle and root. < And > it has been cast down into
bodies in this way, because it is the food of the archons who have seized

57 Man. Ps. 246,25-30, (Allberry p. 54) “I am in everything. I bear the skies, I am the
foundation, I support the earths, I am the light that shines forth, that gives joy to the souls.
I am the life of the world. I am the milk that is in all trees: I am the sweet water that is
beneath the sons of Matter.”

58 Asmussen p. 72 (Uighur Chuashtuanift VC), “If we ever, my God, somehow . . . should
have killed (living beings) (then) we to the same degree owe life to living beings.”

59 A Manichaean confession of sin translated by Henning, in “Ein Manichaisches Bet-
und Beichtbuch,” Turk. Turf. VIII, APAW 1936, No. 10, p. 142, reads” ... in grosser Unziichtig-
keit Baume abzuhauen oder zu pflanzen (scheue ich mich nicht), am Fruhlingsmorgen der
Baume Sprossen und (iiberhaupt) der Elemente Notlage beachten (bedenke) ich nicht;
mit dem Leibe erstreben wir (ja alle) zu pflanzen und zu saen, einen Garten oder ein
Grundstiick.”

60 Klimkeit p. 174 (Confessional text for the elect, Sogdian with Persian citations), “why
was I not (reborn) in the class of pigs, dogs or yakshas?"

61 Cf. Tit Bost. Man. 1.17.

62 Keph. 29,18-20 “The first hunter is the king of the realm of darkness, who hunted the
living soul with his net at the beginning of the worlds.”

63 Keph. 50,22, “archons, the enemies of the light."

MANICHAEANS

237

it and < eaten it as* > a source of strength for themselves, 64 and parceled
it out among bodies.) (7) And therefore, he says, this wisdom has set
these luminaries, the sun, moon and stars 65 in the sky, and has made a
mechanical contrivance through what the Greeks call the twelve signs of
the zodiac. 66

9,8 ffe affirms that these signs draw the souls of dying men and other
living things upwards, because they shine. But they are carried to the
ship — Mani says that the sun and moon are ships 67 And the smaller ship
loads for fifteen days, till the full moon. And so it carries them across, and
on the fifteenth day stows them in the larger ship, the sun. 68 (g) And the
sun, the larger ship, ferries them over to the aeon of light and the land of
the blessed. 69

9,10 And thus the souls which have been ferried over by the sun and
moon < are saved* >. For of those who < have become > acquainted with
his vulgar chatter, he says that they have been purified and deemed wor-
thy of this mythical crossing of his. And again, he says that a soul can-
not be saved unless it < shares > the same knowledge. And there is much
sound and fury in this fabrication.

Now these were Mani’s teachings, and Archelaus had been made famil-
iar with < them by Turbo >, and because of his extensive knowledge of
God and his advance < information > was fully prepared for the debate.
For he had obtained precise knowledge of all of Mani’s charlatanry from
Turbo. And lo and behold, here came Mani, with his companions!

< Marcellus and Archelaus > came then and there to a public debate in
Caschar. They had previously chosen a man named Marsipus, and Clau-
dius, and Aegeleus and Cleobulus as judges of their disputation. One was
a pagan philosopher, one a professor of medicine, another a professional

64 Klimkeit p. 172 ( Confessional Text for the Elect, Sogdian with Persian citations), “For
the (demon of) Greed... that has formed this body . . . constandy provokes contention
through these five ‘gates.’ (Through them) it brings the internal demons together with the
external ones, in the courses of which a small part (of the soul) is destroyed day by day.”

65 Keph. 168,1-2 sharply distinguishes between the “five stars” (planets) which are evil,
and the sun and moon which rule over the planets and “oppress” them.

66 At Klimkeit p. 306 ( Apocryphal Words of the Historicaljesus), unsatisfactory catechu-
mens ascend to the zodiac and descend again to be reborn.

67 Klimkeit p. 68 (A hymn to the Third Messenger, Parthian) “Full of joy are the divine
abodes, the noble ships, the ferries that are created by the word.”

68 Man. Ps. 267,7-9, (Allberry p. 85) “. . . now in thy gifts of light . . . from ship to ship
unto the Envoy in whom . . . who will ferry me across in . . .”

69 Keph. 158, 31-32, “(The greater luminary) is the gate of light and the vehicle of peace
to this great aeon of light.”

238

MANICHAEANS

teacher of grammar, and the other a sophist. (3) And after many words on
both sides, with Mani advancing his fabricated teachings and Archelaus,
like the bravest of soldiers, destroying the enemy’s weapons by his own
strength, and when Mani was finally beaten and the judges had awarded
the prize to the truth — (4) that was no surprise. The truth is self-authenti-
cating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes
the precept of the truth. For like the shadow of darkness, like the slippery
footing of a snake’s onset, like the snake’s lack of support without feet,
falsehood has no ground or foundation.

11,1 And then Mani escaped, 70 though the people would have stoned
him if Marcellus had not come forward and shamed the mob with his
venerable presence — otherwise, if he had stayed, the miserable dead
man would have died a long time earlier. Mani withdrew and came to a
village < in the neighborhood* > of Caschar called Diodoris, 71 (2) where
the people’s presbyter at the time was a very mild man named Trypho. 72
Mani lodged with Trypho and confused him in turn with his boasts, for
he realized that Trypho, while a good man in other respects and a marvel
of piety, was lacking in eloquence. (3) Even here, however, he was not
able to mock Christ’s servant as he had supposed he could. God’s way is
to prepare the gifts of the Spirit and supply them to those who hope in
him, as the One who never lies has promised, “Take no thought what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of my Father which
speaketh in you.” 73

11,4 And so Mani chose to debate once more, with the presbyter Try-
pho. Trypho answered him at many points and wrote to Archelaus about
this matter, (5) “A man has come here like a fierce wolf and is trying to
destroy the fold. I beg you to send me instructions on how to deal with
him or in what terms I should reply to his heresy. And if you should see
fit to come yourself, you would relieve the minds of Christ’s fold, and his
sheep.” Archelaus sent him two books < for > the ready understanding of
Mani, and told him to expect him in person.

11,6 At early morning Mani came into the middle of the village, pre-
tending to challenge Trypho to debate as a colleague. And after Trypho
had made his appearance, (7) and with his God-given understanding had

70 Cf. Act. Arch. 43.1-2, Cyr. Cat. 6.30.

71 Holl: dp xcopjv uva T»j? KcAyapto TtepiolxiSop AioScopiSa xakouptevvjv; MSS:...tv)p
xaXyctpcov sip AioSupiSa xaXoupEvvjv.

72 At Act. Arch. 43.4 both the presbyter and the village are named Diodorus.

73 Matt 10:19-20.

MANICHAEANS

239

answered Mani’s questions point by point to the fraud’s discomfiture —
[though] somewhat softly where he felt doubtful — Archelaus turned up
like a powerful householder protecting his property, confidently attacked
the would-be plunderer, and took him to task.

11,8 As soon as Mani saw Archelaus he said, with fawning hypocrisy,
“Allow me to debate with Trypho. Since < you are > a bishop, you out-
rank me.” (g) But together with the repudiation of that remark Archelaus
silenced Mani by exposing him as an [even] greater hypocrite, and again
put him to shame by answering his arguments, so that he could say noth-
ing further. And the people once more grew angry and tried to lay hands
on the offender. He, however, escaped the mob and < returned* > once
more to Fort Arabio.

12,1 And then, when the king of Persia learned of Mani’s hideout, he
sent and arrested him in the fortress. He dragged him ignominiously back
to Persia and punished him by ordering that he be hayed with a reed. 74
(2) They still have his skin in Persia, hayed with a reed and stuffed with
straw. 75 And this is how he died; Manichaeans themselves sleep on reed
mattresses for this reason.

12,3 After he had died like that and had left his disciples whom we
have mentioned, Addas, Thomas and Hermeias — he had sent them > out
before he was punished as we described — (4) Hermeias went > to Egypt.
Many < of us* > met him. For the sect is not an ancient one, and the peo-
ple who had met this Hermeias, Mani’s disciple, described him to me.
(5) Addas, however, went north 76 and Thomas to Judaea, and the doctrine
has gained in strength to this day by their efforts. (6) Mani, however, said
that he was the Paraclete Spirit, 77 and calls himself an apostle of Christ

74 This appears only in anti-Manichaean sources, e.g., Theodore Bar Khoni (Pognon
p. 184); Cyr. Cat. 6.30. Manichaean sources most often say that Mani was crucified, Man.
Horn. 44,17-20; 45,9; 71,15; Man. Ps. 226,19-231 (Allberry p.19) etc. Some say that Mani died
in prison, cf. Asmussen p. 57 (M 5, Parthian: MM III: 863-865) “On the fourth of the month
of Shahrevar, on the Monday and at the eleventh hour, when he had prayed, he shed the
wonted garment of the body.”

75 This is scurrilous, but Manichaean sources say that Mani’s head was cut off and
exhibited to the populace, e.g. at Man. Ps. 19,29-31.

76 Perhaps cf. Asmussen p. 21 (M 216b, Parthian: MM II p. 301, n. 2 and p. 302, n. 3),
“When the apostle was [in] Veh Ardashir (Seleuceia, on the west bank of the Tigris) then
he sent the Teacher, Addas the Bishop . . . [and] other scribes to Byzans . . .” At p. 300 Addas
goes to the east.

77 Keph. 14,31-15,24, “In this year, the year in which Ardashir the king [was ready? to
receive] the crown, the living Paraclete descended to me, spoke with me, and revealed to
me the hidden mystery ... In this way all that has come to pass and will come to pass was

240

MANICHAEANS

on some occasions, and the Paraclete Spirit on others. And there is a great
variation of the heresies in his blindness.

13.1 Now at length, beloved, I need to say < something > about the sect
and its nonsense; all that precedes, I have described for your information.

(2) Now then, the savage Mani begins his teaching, speaking and writ-
ing in his work on faith. (3) For he issued various books, one composed
of < twenty-two sections* > to match < the > twenty-two letters of the
Syriac alphabet. 78 (4) (Most Persians use the Syrian letters besides < the >
Persian, just as, with us, many nations use the Greek letters even though
nearly every nation has its own. (5) But others pride themselves on the
oldest dialect of Syriac, if you please, and the Palmyrene — it and its let-
ters. But there are twenty-two of them, and the book is thus divided into
twenty-two sections.)

13,6 He calls this book the Mysteries ofManickaeus, and another one the
Treasury. And he makes a show of other books he has stitched together,
the Lesser Treasury, as one is called, and another on astrology. (7) Mani-
chaeans have no shortage of this sort of jugglery; they have astrology for a
handy subject of boasting, and phylacteries — I mean amulets — and cer-
tain other incantations and spells.

This is how Mani begins his book:

14.1 There were God and matter, Light and darkness, good and evil, all in
direct opposition to each other, so that neither side has anything in common
with the other . 79 And this is the scum’s prologue; (2) he begins his mischief
there. And broadly speaking, that is the book, which contains certain bad
propositions of this sort, the difficulty of which, and the contradiction at
the very outset between the words and their aim, must be understood.

(3) For even though the rest of his nonsense and fabricated religion is
extensive, the whole of his wickedness will be shown by its introduction.

For the words, “There were God and matter,” taught nothing less than
the futile speculation of the Greeks. (4) But it is easy to detect, understand
and refute this valueless sophistical notion. < It is plain* > to anyone with
good judgment that the conclusion that there are two contemporaneous

revealed to me by the Paraclete ... all that the eye beholds, the ear hears, and the thought
considers ... I knew all and saw all, and became one body and one spirit . . .”

78 Holl: TtOV X.OLTOL TV]V TUV EupCOV OTOlXsicOCTlV <EX x( 3 ' TO[XCOV> CnjyXEipEVVp; MSS: TUV xara
tv]v Eupcov cttoixeIwcuv 81' oA<f>a| 3 y)Tou cruyxEipEvvp. Other suggestions for emendation are
found in Holl.

79 Tit. Bost. Man. 1.5 gives this as a summary of Mani’s teaching. A variation of it is
found at Aug. Ep. Fund. 13.

MANICHAEANS

241

eternals cannot be reached by correct reasoning and well-intended intel-
ligence. And anyone with sense must find this out. (5) If the two [eter-
nals] are contemporaneous they cannot be different, even in name. For
anything that is contemporaneous [with one of them] is also co-eternal.
But this co-eternal and ever existent thing is God, particularly as he has
no cause. For nothing is eternal but God alone.

14,6 But with your barbarous mind and enmity toward the human
race you have referred to these principles by different names. You have
spoken of one as “light,” but the other as “darkness,” and again, of the
one as “good” and the other as “evil.” But you claim that they are in total
opposition in every respect, so that neither has anything in common with
the other. You separate them, then; for it is plain that they are opposites,
as you have said. (7) (If they are partners, however, the partners will be
found to be friendly and in agreement, because they live together in fel-
lowship and from their profound affection never leave one another.) 80

14,8 However, if [Mani’s first principles] are separate from each other,
each of them is surely bounded. But nothing that is bounded is perfect; it
is limited by its boundedness, (g) Besides, a boundary will be needed for
the delimitation of both, or both territories will touch at the ends, be in
contact with each other through the ends, have something in common,
and violate the rule of their opposition. 81 And if you grant that there is a
divider between the two, (10) the divider cannot be like them, but neither
can it be different from both. (11) For if the divider can be called com-
parable to one of the two eternals we mentioned [even] in one part of
it, then, because of the comparable part, the divider cannot be different
from [the eternal]. Instead it will be connected with the one with which
it is comparable, there will be a junction at the part that matches, and
[the divider] will no longer be bounded where it parts the two substances
from each other 82

14,12 If, however, it is not like the two and has no share of a part of
either, there cannot be two eternals and everlastings; there must, in the
last analysis, be three. And there can no longer be two principles, and two
primordials opposed to each other. There must be another, third thing,
which is opposed to both and unlike both, and which divides the two and,
because of its foreignness to them, has nothing in common with either

80 Epiphanius may here be influenced by Tit. Bost. Man. 1.5.

81 The thought and wording here are close to that of Tit. Bost. Man. 1.7.

82 Cf. Serap. Thm. 32.13-17.

242

MANICHAEANS

and no likeness to either. 83 And in the end there are no longer two, but
these three. 84

14,13 And besides, another will also be required, a fourth, to mediate
and set this boundary. For the two could not set the boundary or partition
without another to be the umpire who put the divider between them — a
skillful, wise and fair umpire, what is more, with higher rank [than either]
so that he can persuade them both to a peaceable reconciliation. (14)
Thus there will be one to set the boundary, one to divide, and two to be
bounded, and there cannot be only two first principles; there must even
be three and four. And in this way one can think of many first principles,
ignoring real things and imagining unreal ones.

15.1 In the offender’s effort not to allow evil, of all things, to touch God —
in fact, to ascribe < evil > to God is an absurdity. In the standard form of
the church’s teaching it is agreed that the Godhead has nothing to do with
evil and no admixture of it. (2) For God made nothing evil; he made “all
things very good,” 85 since God is by nature good and of an incomprehen-
sible essence, and contains all things but is himself contained by none.
Evil, therefore, did not always exist, nor was evil made by God.

r5,3 Since evil does not always exist, then, and was not made by God, it
remains to examine the nature of this thing that does not always exist but
has a beginning, and that is coming to its end and perishing, and has no
permanence — < and > how it began. (4) And in examining this we must
first consider the sort of thing that evil is and the sort of thing in which
evil arises, and whether it is an object or, as it were, has a body or sub-
stance, or whether it can even have a root. (5) And when we think this
through we shall find that evil is without substance and has no root, but
is limited to the deeds of human activity at work. (6) While we are doing
it, evil exists; while we are not doing it, it does not. ft is our good judg-
ment that discovers what it means to do evil — to do the thing that does
not please God, and can neither contradict God nor resist the Godhead.
For when anything can be rooted out and destroyed by men, all the more
can it not hold out against God.

16.1 At the same time we must understand that the devil was not made
evil by nature at the creation but discovered evildoing for himself later, and
not without the knowledge of what he would become. With all creatures

83 Titus of Bostra argues at Man. 1.7 that Mani’s thesis requires at least three principles.
Cf. Alex. Lycop. Man. 8.

84 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 1.7; Alex. Lycop. Man. 8; Act. Arch. 24.7.

85 Gen 1:31; with the argument in general, cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 2.1.

MANICHAEANS

243

he was created well, with the utmost serviceability because of superior
righteousness. (2) For though God in his supreme goodness willed that all
persons and creatures be < good >, and though he offered his good gifts
to all, he still, by allowing the freedom to choose, permits all creatures to
undertake whichever action each chooses by its own will. Thus God can-
not be responsible for the evils, though there will be a separation of those
who progress to virtue and win the rewards of goodness.

16.3 But though this madman Mani (Mdvqq) means to exempt God
from evil, he has instead set evil over against God on equal terms. (4) And
at the same time, while he is abusing all creation, he is not ashamed to use
our human errors as his excuse for interweaving < a mixture of the two* >
evenly matched < principles* > with all created being. He has in fact
become the champion and defender of the evil he claims to forbid. And
when he grants its existence and declares its eternity, and that, together
with God, it always is and never ceases to be, he is embracing a sort of
fondness for evil and fellowship with it instead of a hatred toward it.

16,5 And Mani’s departure from the truth can be detected from his use
of certain terms for evil in every subject [he discusses]. For the goodness
of God’s whole creation is proved by the texts Mani himself cites. (17,1)
First of all he has called evil, “matter,” and holds matter to be corruption
in the same sense [as evil] 86 And to begin with, if matter is corruption,
what can it be the corruption of? If it is the corruption of other things, but
matter itself is enduring, then matter would have destroyed everything
long ago; and after putting its power into operation for so long without
being extirpated, only it would exist.

17,2 But if matter is the corruption of itself, and if it corrupts, assails,
consumes and destroys itself, it is on its way to destruction and can-
not endure, since it is the source of its own destruction and corrup-
tion 87 (3) How could it have lasted for so long, as the scum claims, but at
the same time have nothing at all to do with life, and not in fact < have a
share > of life or goodness?

17.4 But since there is also goodness in each of the creatures Mani
abuses, his account of evil is altogether mistaken; each of the principles
he speaks of has something in common with the other. (5) All that is has

86 At Keph. 31,10, and often in the Kephalaia, matter is “the thought of death.”: Cf. Keph.
31,15-16, where matter forms the body of “the king of darkness and smoke,” and 131,4-5
“. . . from the time at which death, that is, matter, is eliminated . . .”

87 A similar argument is used at Tit. Bost. Man. 1.11; cf. Serap. Thm. 79.21.1.

244

MANICHAEANS

been made for a purpose, but the things that Mani abuses by name con-
tain the opposite of evil. Take snakes, for example and the other < poison-
ous reptiles >. (6) The sources of deadly poison also contain 88 an antidote
to do away with death and suffering. And the daytime is indeed for human
labor, as well as for illumination and vision; but the night, which Mani
disparages by name, 89 is also a rest which God has given to man. 90 (7) And
so it is evident that each thing individually is good, and cannot be termed
evil, or given a name synonymous with evil, because of our sins.

18,1 For all things are good and pleasant, and nothing is rejected by the
God < who says >, “And behold, all things are very good.” 91 And nowhere is
there a root of evil. (2) This is why, when God was making the whole world
by his goodness, he ascribed goodness to each of his creatures at the out-
set, and said, “And God saw that it was good” 92 — testifying to its goodness
and confounding the shrewdness of the plotters against mankind, who
want to conceal the truth from men with their evil stories. (3) For God
made heaven and earth, the light, and the things on the earth, on the first
day, “And he saw, and behold it was good,” 93 says the scripture. (4) Didn’t
he know he would make something good, then, since he says, “Behold, it
is good,” after it was made? And so, in succession, of the waters, the sea,
vegetation, trees, the heavenly luminaries, cattle, birds, reptiles and fish.
(5) For scripture said, “And God saw, and behold, it was good,” in every
case — but not because God did not know this beforehand or because
he < learned > it after the thing was made, as though he had acquired
his knowledge of its goodness by experience. Because of the opinion of
the injudicious he declared in advance that all things are good, and that
evil has no existence anywhere. (6) Since all things are good, and since
their goodness is attested by the absolutely true testimony of the Good,
< the > Privation of all that is evil and of all wickedness said, “Behold, it is
good”, for the refutation of men’s whole artificial opinion of evil, and the
demolition of the entire notion of those who introduce this mischievous
teaching.

88 Holl: xod xaxcoasui; <£vpiaxerai>; MSS: xod xaxuusus xaxi&piivcov.

89 Keph. 161,20-25, “The night reveals the sign of the darkness of its father, from whose
essence it comes. For the night came from the first darkness and appeared in the world.
Look at the night, the shadow of the first darkness which is made fast and bound in all
things above and below.” And see the entire passage, Keph. 160,18-161,25.

90 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 2.18.

91 Gen 1:31.

92 Gen 1:4; 10; 12; 18; 21; 25.

93 Gen 1:4.

MANICHAEANS

245

18,7 Then, when he came to man, God did not say that man is “good,”
and did not say that man is “bad.” And yet man is the most excellent of
all earthly creatures, created by God, with his ineffable wisdom, to rule
the world — and God would give him dominion over all his creatures as
he says, (8) “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air,
and over the creeping things of the earth, and cattle and beasts, and over
all that is on the earth.” 94 (g) Since man had been made in God’s image,
holy writ was content with such a great dignity, which needed no further
addition. (10) For if man possessed the image of Goodness itself at his
creation — I mean the image of the Lord God, the artificer, and good arti-
ficer, of all creatures, the wellspring of all goodness and the source of the
good in all — why would man need the further testimony of “Behold, it is
good?” He had received the image of the Good himself.

18,11 But later at the end of the whole account, after the making of all of
God’s handiwork, the word of God, in conclusion, bore the same witness
for all and said, (12) “And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it
was very good,” 95 adding the word, “very.” This was the sixth day, and the
seventh day of rest. The point was to remove the root of [Mani’s] < opin-
ion > of evil, so that never again would anyone find an excuse for daring
to believe that evil is eternal. (13) For this same account of evil had been
demolished. There was no evil anywhere, for all things were very good,
and had been made and witnessed to by a good God.

19,1 “Matter” can mean two things. On the one hand, in the offender’s
sense of the word, it is the name of an activity, as I said, and a consuming
corruption. But we ordinarily say “matter” of the material < consumed* >
by craftsmen in the production of every article — wooden matter, for exam-
ple, ceramic matter, the matter of gold, the matter of silver. The result
of the bodily process which is caused by the decomposition of food 96 is
also called “matter.” All right, let’s have the newly arrived diviner (pavTiq),
who claims to have been before the ages, tell us < which kind of matter
he meant* >. (2) For he even dared to say he was the Paraclete Spirit —
though on other occasions he calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, as
I said. And yet he never took the form of a dove, or put on the Paraclete
Spirit who was sent to the apostles from heaven to be their garment of

94 Gen 1:26.

95 Gen 1:31.

96 Holl: fSpcoCTecop; MSS: micciiascoi;.

246

MANICHAEANS

immortality < and* > the power < of their testimony* >. (3) The Only-
begotten promised to send this Spirit, and set the time for it “not many
days hence” 97 but directly after his ascension — as he said, "If I depart, he
will come.” 98 And on their return from the Mount of Olives, “they were
filled with the Holy Spirit” at once in the upper room 99 (4) as the scripture
says, “There appeared to them cloven tongues of fire.” 100 And the house
was filled as with a violent blast of wind, and the Spirit settled on each of
them, and they spoke of God’s wonders in tongues, and all heard them in
their own languages. (5) For they came from every people under heaven
and yet each of them was comforted by the Spirit — the apostles by the
gift, and all the nations by the sound of God’s wondrous teaching.

19.6 For if the Paraclete Spirit the Lord promised his disciples was this
scum — this true Maniac, and bearer of the name by his own self-designa-
tion — < the > apostles went to their rest cheated of the promise, though
the Lord who does not lie had told them, “Ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit after these few days.” 101

19.7 And it will be found that the fraud is falsely accusing Christ of
failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone — I mean the
generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the
time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in
Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son,
born, like the rest of his brothers, of Joseph’s real wife. (8) Because the
Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was
brought up with them, < they > were in the position of brothers to him, and
he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne
are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them — Symeon, the
son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph.

19,9 I subjoin their successive episcopates one by one, beginning with
the episcopate of James — bishops who were
appointed in Jerusalem during each emperor’s reign until the time of
Aurelian and Probus, when this Mani, a Persian, became known, and pro-
duced this outlandish teaching.

97 Acts 1:5.

98 Cf. John 16:7.

99 Sic! Acts 2:4 combined with 1:13.

100 Acts 2:3.

101 Acts 1:5; 2:38.

MANICHAEANS

247

The list follows: 102

20,1 James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel.
[He lived] until the time of Nero.

Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.

Judah

Zachariah

Tobiah

Benjamin

John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan. 103

Matthias

Philip

Seneca

Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.

Levi

Vaphres

Jose

15. Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius. 104 The above
were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem.

The following were gentiles:

Mark

Cassian

Puplius

Maximus

20. Julian. These all exercised their office up until the tenth year of
Antoninus Pius.

2r. Gaian
Symmachus

Gaius, bringing us to the time of Verus, in the eighth year of his reign.

Julian

Capita

Maximus, bringing us to the sixteenth year of Verus.

Antoninus

Valens

Dolichian, bringing us to Commodus.

Narcissus

102 The following list appears to be derived from a series of references in Eusebius’
Chronicle. For a discussion in detail see Holl, Panariom II, pp. 44-47.

103 MSS: Ecbp Sex a Evvsa etou$. Holl suggests that this is a dittography.

104 MS: psxpi evSejottou Avtcoviou. Holl tentatively suggests ptexP 1 TEpocoXupcov aXcotjEcop.

248

MANICHAEANS

Dius, bringing us to Severus.

Germanio

Gordius, bringing us to Antoninus.

Narcissus, the same person, bringing us to Alexander the son of
Mamaea — not Alexander of Macedon, but a different one.

Alexander, bringing us to the same Alexander.

Mazabanus, bringing us to Gallus and Volusian.

Hymenaeus, bringing us to Aurelian.

20.3 According to some annalists there are 276 105 years altogether from
Christ’s ascension until the time of Mani, Aurelian and Probus. According
to others, there are 246.

And there have been eight other bishops from that time until the pres-
ent: Bazas, Hermo, Macaris, Maximus, Cyril, Herennis, Cyril once more,
and Hilarion, the present occupant of the see, who is accused of consort-
ing with the Arians.

20.4 And the successive emperors whose reigns coincided [with these
last eight episcopates] are: The remaining one year of the remaining part
of Aurelian’s reign; Tacitus, who reigned for six months; < Probus, six
years >; Carus, Carinus and Numerian, two years. Diocletian, twenty years.
Maximian, Licinius, Constantine, Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian,
Valens, Gratian, < 73 years altogether >. (5) Thus there are 101 years from
Mani until the present, that is, till the thirteenth year of Valens, the ninth
of Gratian, the first of Valentinian the Younger and the ninety-third of the
Diocletian era. 106 (6) < In other words the Holy Spirit waited for 276 years
in Mani* >, so that he could be sent to the world as [his] emissary in the
fourth year of Aurelian and the episcopate of Hymenaeus at Jerusalem,

< and > deprive and cheat his followers of the truth through the working
of imposture and delusion by the devil who inhabited him.

21,1 Hence his entire trickery has been fully exposed since, through
their accurate discovery of everything, the minds of the wise will surely
find his false notion out. (2) And all his other beliefs are sophisms, filled
with foolishness — perverse, uncertain and, to all the wise, ridiculous.

< Since I intend > to analyze them phrase by phrase, and set down the
arguments against them all, I am going to make the refutatory part of my
work against him very bulky. (3) Marvelously good replies to him have

105 This figure is obtained by adding the thirty years of Christ’s life to the 246.

106 I.e., 377 a.d. Epiphanius has been at work on the Panarion for approximately two
years. Cf. Pan. Proem II 2,3.

MANICHAEANS

249

already been composed by great men — by Archelaus the bishop, as has
been said; and, I have heard, by Origen; and by Eusebius of Caesarea and
Eusebius of Emesa, Serapion of Thmuis, Athanasius of Alexandria, George
of Laodicea, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Titus, and many who have spoken in
opposition to him.

21,4 Still, even in my poverty it will do no harm to make a few remarks
to the wretched man’s shame, in refutation of what I have already called
his entirely false notion. (5) And I would prefer not to put his refutation
in harsh terms but as gently as possible, except that, impudently, he does
not hesitate to blaspheme the Lord of all and deny at the outset that he is
the creator — this though he made this whole vault of heaven, earth, and
everything in them, and everything in the world. But in imagining another
God who does not exist, Mani has abandoned the One who does. (6) He
has been deprived of the truth, and has had the experience in the comic
proverb, where the crow had food in its mouth and saw the reflection of
the food in the water, and wanting to get something else to eat, lost the
food it had and still didn’t get the food it didn’t.

21.7 But who can tolerate the blasphemer? If we have fathers of flesh
and blood and cannot bear to hear them criticized, how much more if we
hear the Lord God of all blasphemed by the savage Mani?

21.8 When, in the divine goodness, storms are sent by the mercy of
God, Mani is not ashamed to say blaspehmously that storms do not come
from God, but from the effluent of the archons. 107 (22,1) But who could
fail to laugh out loud to say the rest, since the tales of Philistion probably
carry more conviction than Mani’s mimes? (2) He teaches about a mythi-
cal porter who supports the whole world, 108 and says that every thirty
years the porter’s shoulder gets tired, and he shifts the world to the other
shoulder, and < this is why > there are earthquakes. 109

107 Keph. 116,29-31 is more dignified: "(The archons) and also the tyrants, in whose
heart it is to rule in the clouds, the storms (?), the winds, the pneumata and the storm-
winds.” With Epiphanius’ version, (a parody?) cf. Act. Arch. 9.3; Cyr. Cat. 6.34; Tit. Bost.
Man. 8.2.

108 Man. Ps. 2,18-20, “The Omophorus, the great burden-carrier, who treads upon
the . . . with the soles of his feet, supporting the earths with his hands, carrying the burden
of the creations.” Cf. Act. Arch. 8.2.

109 At Keph. 93,16-19 the earthquake “in the watch of the Porter” is a primordial one,
and is caused by a rebellion in the depths: “Again, during the watch of the Omophorus who
humbles . . . there was a rebellion of the depths below . . . bowed, and the fastenings beneath
came loose ... in the foundation below.” Cf. NHC Orig. Wld. 102,25-31. Outside of Epipha-
nius, the shifting of the porter’s pole is found only at Timothy Presbyter PG 86, 21A.

250

MANICHAEANS

22,3 But if this were so, the thing would be a fact of nature, not super-
natural. (4) And the Savior’s words refute the charlatan, for he said,
“Become good like your Father in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise
on the just and on the unjust, and sendeth his rain on the evil and on
the good,” 110 and, “There shall be earthquakes in divers places, and fam-
ines and pestilences.” 111 (5) If earthquakes were natural or normal, < but >
perhaps there were frequent quakes in a country and the earth happened
to shake many times a night for a whole year, would that be because the
porter’s shoulders hurt, and he was uncomfortable and made the quake
continuous? And who can endure this sort of nonsense?

22,6 But what else < in >credible has he not dared to say? For he claims
that souls which have acquired knowledge of his imposture are taken
up into the moon, since the essence of the soul is luminous. (7) This is
why the moon waxes and wanes, he says; it becomes filled with the souls
which have died in the knowledge of his unbelief. (8) Then, he says, they
are offloaded from the moon — the smaller ship, < as > he calls it — to the
sun. And < the sun > takes them aboard and deposits them in the aeon of
the blessed.

22,9 But wickedness is always blind, and unaware of its own shame —
how it is refuted by its own words, because it cannot make its lies consis-
tent. (23,1) For one man was formed to begin with, Adam, and had sons
and daughters. But in the beginning of the creation, around Adam’s hun-
dredth year, Abel was killed at roughly the age of thirty 112 (2) After this
first victim of murder the first man, Adam, died, at about the age of 930.
But the sun, moon and stars had been fixed and established in the sky on
the fourth day of creation. (3) Now what should we say, Mister? Should we
agree that your stupidity has been exposed? How could 930 years go by
without the moon’s waning and waxing? (4) With which departed souls
was the sun filled and loaded? Well? But Mani did not know that there
are wise persons who cannot be convinced by lying words, but [only] by
the most authentic proofs.

23,5 But if we do grant that this is so — heaven help us, it can’t be! [But
if we grant that it is so], and the moon, in growing full, is crammed with
the souls of Manicheans, still how can such a proposition be sustained? 113

110 Matt 5:45.

111 Cf. Mark 13:8.

112 Jub. 2.10.

113 At Man. 22 Alexander of Lycopolis bases his anti-Manichean argument on the fixed
periods of the moon’s waxing and waning.

MANICHAEANS

251

(6) If no Manichean died after the fifteenth of the month, and it was
fore-ordained that Manicheans would die up until the fifteenth, but no
more after the fifteenth until the moon’s cargo had been unloaded to start
loading again at the new moon, their lie would be convincing. As it is,
it is unpersuasive. (7) Manicheans die every day, and the heavenly bod-
ies which God has ordained know their course. And once more, the slop 114
about the souls in the moon, which he has made up, won’t do.

24,1 Again, some of them < concoct another story* > with villainous
intent, < and* > say that the Mother of all 115 allowed her power to come
down from heaven to steal < from > the archons 116 and rob them of the
power they had taken from on high. (2) For Mani says that the princi-
palities and authorities made war on the living God and seized < his*>
great and incomprehensible < essence* > from him, a power which he
calls the soul.

24,3 How very absurd of him! Whoever is seized and handled with vio-
lence has been bested. If the principalities oppressed the good God and
took power from his armor, they must be more powerful than he. (4) And
if he gave in to them to begin with, he does not have the ability to take
the power, or armor, which they stole from him back from them 117 — not
when he was unable to resist his enemies in the first place.

24,5 To put it another way, suppose that he could win a victory at some
time, prevail over his antagonists, and take back the power they had sto-
len from him. Since the root of evil, its first principle with no beginning,
would still be in existence and impossible to destroy altogether, it would
win in another war, prevail by the exercise of some power, and again take
more power from the good God, as well as his power which he had taken
back. (6) And evil will always be ranged against the good God and never
controllable, so that it will be forever seizing and being seized.

114 Epiphanius is apparently punning on yopo?, which can mean either “cargo” or
“soup.”

115 In Manichean theology the Mother of all is usually the first emanation from the
Father. She does not ordinarily interact directly with earthly heings. Cfi, however, Keph.
71,21-23, “If (the Mother of Life) had descended and come down, by [her own will alone],
from the Father's height to the earth, [she would have spent a thousand] years, and ten
thousands . . .”

116 Keph. 124,28-29, “Thus when the matter that is in them is oppressed . . . and
robbed . . .” Cf. PS IV.136 (MacDermot pp. 354-355), "But the base of the moon was of the
type of a boat, and a male dragon and a female dragon steered it, while two white bulls
drew it. And the likeness of a child was at the back of the moon, and guided the dragons
as they stole the light of the archons from them.”

117 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 1.23; 30.

252

MANICHAEANS

24,7 But even though these people, whose wits are damaged < and >
who are in every way deluded, say that if the good God frees the part of
his armor that has been seized from him, he will then do away with the
principalities and authorities of the opposing power and destroy them
altogether — even if this will happen, and the good God will indeed get
rid of them entirely and destroy them, 118 the scum’s argument is still all
wrong. For he is claiming that the “good” God is not just and does not
condemn the sinner, either by consigning him to torments or by putting
him to death. (8) For if he makes any attempt to do away with the devil,
or opposing power, and destroy him, either he cannot be good in himself,
as Mani’s account of him says he is; or, if he is good and still destroys evil,
then this Lord who made heaven and earth must be < just >, as in fact he
is, since he "rendereth to every man according to his deeds.” 119 For with
extreme goodness he provides the good man, who has grown weary in
well-doing, with good, and metes out justice to the evildoer, (g) And it has
been shown in every way that Mani’s talk gradually turns men’s hearts to
the opposites [of his teachings].

25,1 But next I appropriately insert Mani’s doctrine word for word as
Turbo himself revealed it, one of Mani’s disciples whom I mentioned ear-
lier, taking this from Archelaus’ arguments against Mani in the debate
with him. (2) When the bishop Archelaus, and Marcellus, questioned
Turbo about Mani’s teaching, Turbo replied in the words I quote from
the book. They are as follows: 120

25,3 The beginning of Mani’s godless teachings

If you wish to learn the creed of Mani, hear it from me in a concise form.
Mani believes in two gods, unbegotten, self engendering, eternal, and the
opposites of each other. And he teaches that one is good and the other evil,
and calls the one Light, and the other, Darkness . 121 The soul in human beings
is part of the light, but the body is part of the darkness and the creature of
matter . 122

118 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 1.30.

119 Rom 2:6.

120 25,3-31,8 are quoted from Act. Arch. 7.13.

121 Keph. 286,127-30, “[the] two essences which are primordial ... light and darkness,
good and evil, [life and] death . . .”

122 Cf. Henning, “Ein Manichaischer kosmogonischer Hymnus,” NGWG 1032 pp. 251-
253, “. . . matter is distributed which (in) itself is seven she-demons. The first one is the
skin ...(... she, i.e., Greed, Az) took, and she made this carrion, the microcosm, in order
to be made joyful through it . . .”

MANICHAEANS

253

25,4 Now < Mani > says that a mixture or confusion of these has come
about as follows, likening the two < gods > to the following illustration:
Suppose two kings were at war with each other , 123 and they had been ene-
mies from the first, and each had his respective territory. But in the battle
the darkness sallied forth from its territory and assailed the light. (5) Now
when the good Father found the darkness had invaded his land he emitted a
power from himself called Mother of life , 124 and she emitted First Man < and
clothed him * > with the five elements . 125 These are wind, light, water, fire and
matter . 125 (6) Putting these on as battle gear, he went below and did battle
with the darkness . 121 But as they fought against him the archons of the dark-
ness ate part of his armor 128 that is, the soul

25.7 Then First Man was fearfully hard pressed there below by the dark-
ness. And if the Father had not heard his prayer 129 and sent another power
he had emitted, called Living Spirit, and if Living Spirit had not descended
and given First Man his right hand and drawn him out of the darkness , 130
First Man might well have been in danger of capture long ago.

25.8 After this First Man abandoned the soul below. And when Mani-
cheans meet they give each other their right hands 131 for this reason, as a
sign that they have been saved from the darkness. For Mani says that all

123 Keph. 4,1-2, “the darkness made war on the light, because it desired to rule over an
essence that was not its own.” In the NHC, cf. Tri. Trac. 84,6-17.

124 Keph. 71,19-20, “at the time when the Mother of Life was called forth from the
Father of Greatness."

125 Keph. 153,23-24, “[At] the time when the First Man put on the elements and (stood
firm) against the first enmity that originated in the darkness”

126 “Matter” is never a Manichean element; Epiphanius appears to misunderstand Act.
Arch. 82.17; 83.18; 23. The fifth Manichean element is either air or ether.

127 This key episode in the Manichean story is continually alluded to in Manichean lit-
erature. Treatments at length are found, among others, at Keph. 38,8-40,16; 271,30-273,9.

128 Cf. Asmussen p. 121 (Fragments M 1001, M 1012, M 1015, Middle Persian; Ed. W. Sun-
dermann, lines 113-133), “Thus [it was] that God, [the First] Man, appeared. And again,
to all these powers it (i.e., the Light) was like a sweet meal before hungry ones; When it
stands before them, they all devour it; . . .”

129 Asmussen p. 122 (M 21, Parthian: MM III: 890-891), “The God Ormizd prayed to his
mother, and his mother prayed to the righteous God: ‘Send a helper to my son, for he has
carried out your will, and he has come into oppression.’ ” This is comparable to the prayer
of the Logos at Tri. Trac. 81,26-82,14, and of Sophia in other Valentinian documents.

130 Keph. 39,19-21, The second right hand is the one that Living Spirit gave to First
Man after drawing him from the contest . . .” At NHC Gosp. Tr. 30,14-23, “the Spirit” gives
his right hand to (Adam ?).

131 This, and similar gestures, are discussed at length in Chapter 9 of the Kephalaia,
Keph. 38,1-41,34.

254

MANICHAEANS

the sects are in the darkness. Then Living Spirit created the world 132 and he
himself descended clothed with three other powers, brought the archons up
and crucified them in the firmament 133 which is their body, the sphere.

26,1 Then in turn, Living Spirit created the Luminaries, which are rem-
nants of the soul P 34 and made them circle the firmament. And he created the
earth in its turn, in eight forms . 135 But beneath it <is*> the Porter, who bears
< it on his shoulders * >; and whenever he gets tired of bearing it he shivers,
becoming the cause of an earthquake out of its time. (2) This is why the good
Father sent his Son from < his > bosom to the heart of the earth and its low-
est depths, to give the Porter his due punishment . 136 For whenever there is
an earthquake he is either trembling from fatigue or shifting the earth to his
other shoulder.

26.3 Next, matter too created growing things from herself. And since they
were being stolen by certain archons, she called all the chief archons, took
power from each , 137 made this man in the image of that First Man , 138 and
bound the soul in him . 133 This is the reason for the mixture.

26.4 But when Living Father saw the soul squeezed into the body, in his
mercy and compassion he sent his beloved Son for the soul’s salvation — -for

132 See Asmussen pp. 122-123 (T III 26oe ii=M 7984 II, Middle Persian: MM I 177-181)
for a lengthy account of the creation by Living Spirit. There are frequent references to this
in the Kephalaia.

133 Keph. 26.28-31 “This is the second night . . . which was brought up by Living Spirit
and put in the [mixed world] below and above"; 27.10-12 “. . . the second night which the
Living Spirit has crucified in the [mixed world] below and above.”

134 Luminaries made from the remains of the soul are found only at Alex. Lycop. 19 and
Bar Khouni in Pognon p. 189. But note Keph. 269,21-23, “The second image (in man) is the
remnant and remainder of the new man, the psychic image which is bound in the flesh.”

135 Keph. 118,23-25, The second part is the eight earths beneath, the four that are mixed
and the four places of darkness.”

136 On the contrary, at Keph. 9.6-11 Jesus comes to the Porter’s aid: “Again, since the
earth beneath the porter escaped the making fast ... for this reason Jesus came below, put-
ting on Eve until he arrived at the first place. He ordered and fastened the fastenings that
were helow, and returned and ascended to the rest.” At NHC Orig. Wld. 102,25-103,2 Pistis
sends her breath to bind the “trouble-maker” below, who is making the heavens shake.

137 Klimkeit p. 41 ( Verses from a hymn on the Third Messenger and the Archons, Par-
thian) “Filth and dross flow from (the Demon of Wrath) to the earth. They clothe them-
selves in manifold forms and are rehorn in many fruits.” Cf. NHC Orig. Wld. 114,24-30, “And
at that time, the prime parent then rendered an opinion concerning man to those who
were with him. Then each of them cast his sperm into the midst of the navel of the earth.
Since that day, the seven rulers have fashioned man . . .”

138 At Keph. 138,6-14 Matter sees the image of the third Messenger (not of First Man),
and then enters the tree of life and becomes its fruit. The archons eat the fruit and then
make man.

139 Keph. 95,15-17, “But his [soul] [he] took from the five splendid gods [and bound] it
in the five members of the body. He bound the mind . . .”

MANICHAEANS

255

he sent him [both] for this reason and on account of the Porter . 140 And when
the Son arrived he changed his appearance into a man’s and appeared to
men as a man, though he was not one; and people supposed that he had been
begotten [like a man ]. 141 (6) And when he came he created the things that
were meant for the salvation 0/ souls 142 and set up a device with twelve water
jars which is turned by the sphere and draws up the souls of the dying. And
the greater luminary takes these with its rays, cleanses them and transfers
them to the moon, and this is how what we call the disk of the moon becomes
full— for Mani says that the two luminaries are ships, or ferry-boats . 143

26.7 Then, if the moon is filled [with souls], it ferries them across to the
east wind, and thus gets its Load dislodged and is lightened, and begins to
wane . 144 And it fills the ferry-boat again, and again discharges its cargo of
the souls which are drawn up by the water jars, until it has saved its part of
the soul. For Mani says that all soul, and every living and moving thing, is a
partaker of the essence of the good Father.

26.8 When the moon has delivered her load of souls to the aeons of the
Father, they remain in the pillar of glory, which is called the perfect air . 145
But this air is a pillar of light, since it is full of souls being purified. This is
the reason the souls are saved.

140 Keph. 267,28-268,1, “Jesus has not come and saved the world only on man’s
account ... He has come and appeared on earth . . . But after he was through working outside,
in the great cosmos, he came . . .” and 1) revealed himself to Adam and Eve; 2) dispatched
apostles in every generation to preach the Manichean message of salvation.

141 Cf. Asmussen p. 103 (M 24 R 4-8=M 812 V 1-4 Parthian: W. B. Henning, “Brahman”
TPS 1944, p. 112) “Grasp, all believers, the truth of Christ, learn and wholly understand his
secret: He changed his form and appearance”; Man. Horn. 11,5-6, “[Jesus] was [sent] to it;
he came and took the form (?) of a body . . .”; Man. Ps. 191,4-11, “Amen, I was seized; Amen
again, I was not seized. Amen, I was judged; Amen again, I was not judged ... I mocked the
world, they could not mock me.”

142 Keph. 61,22-24, “until he went and descended into the plasma (!) of the flesh, and
set up earths and all plants.”

143 Man. Ps. 10,30-11,2, “the sun and the moon he founded, he set them on high, to purify
the soul. Daily they take up the refined part to the height, but the dregs they erase . . . they
convey it above and below. Keph. 159,25-26, “(The sun) removes the darkness with its light
and sweeps it away, NHC Treat. Res. 45,9-46,2 The departed “are drawn to heaven by him,
like beams of the sun”; this constitutes the “spiritual resurrection.”

144 Keph. 108,20-22, “through the manner of the garment of the wind, in which he
appeared, [Living Spirit] has swept out and scraped out all the shadows of destruction
and dirt, and poured it down on the earth.”

145 The pillar of glory is regularly called the “perfect man,” (otvvjp) not the “perfect air
(ay)p).” However, in Manichean poetry the ideas approach one another, cf. Man. Ps. 83,25-
27, “Hail, Perfect Man, holy path that draws to the height, clear air, mooring-harbor of all
that believe in him.”

256

MANICHAEANS

27,1 But this, in turn, is the reason why people die . 146 A lovely, beautifully
adorned Virgin, very attractive, is attempting to rob the archons who have
been brought up by Living Spirit and crucified in the firmament. She appears
as a lovely women to the males and as a handsome, desirable youth to the
females . 14,7 ( 2 ) And when the archons see her with all her adornment they go
mad with love; and because they cannot catch her 148 they become dreadfully
hot, and their minds are ravished with desire 149 ( 3 ) Now when they run after
her the Virgin disappears. Then the chief archon emits the clouds to darken
the world in his anger; and if he is extremely vexed he perspires and is out of
breath, like a man. And his sweat is the rain . 150

27,4 At the same time, if the archon of destruction 151 is robbed by the Vir-
gin, he sheds pestilence on the whole world to slay human beings . 152 For this
body of ours may be called a < miniature* > world which answers to < this >
great world , 155 and all people have roots below which are fastened to the
realms on high . 154 Thus, when the archon is robbed by the Virgin, he begins
to cut men’s roots. ( 5 ) And when their roots are cut a pestilence sets in and
they die. But if he shakes the heavens by [tugging at) the cord of their root,
the result is an earthquake, for the Porter is moved at the same time. This is
the reason for death.

146 The Virgin of Light is often associated with death, cf. Man. Ps. 84,30-32, “Draw not
the veil of thy secrets until I see the beauty of the joyous image of my Mother, the holy
Maiden, who will ferry me until she brings me to my city.” At Keph. 244,9-13 and regularly
in Pistis Sophia, the Virgin of Light is a judge and assessor of departed souls.

147 Klimkeit p. 68 ( A hymn to the Third Messenger, Parthian) “The mighty powers, the
giants eager for battle, withdraw light from all creatures. In two bright forms they seduce
the demons of wrath.” For a longer version see Theodore bar Khouni (Pognon p. 190).

148 Cf. NHC Apocry. John. 19,18-20,5; Nat. Arc. 87,33-88,15; Orig. Wld. 115,3-116,8.

149 Cf. Asmusssen p. 132 (M 741 Mary Boyce, “Sadwes and Pesus,” BSOAS, Vol. 13, No.
4 (1951); pp. 911-913) “Bright Sadwes shows her form to the Demon of Wrath; by her own
(nature) she seduces him. He thinks she is the essence (of light). He sows ... he groans
when he no longer sees the form. Light is born in the sphere; she gives it to the higher
Powers. The dirt and dross flows from him to the earth. It clothes itself in all phenomena,
and is reborn in many fruits. The Dark Demon of Wrath is ashamed, for he is distraught
and had become naked. He had not attained to the higher, and had been bereft of what
he had achieved.”

150 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 2,32. At Keph. 240,19-243,8 clouds are formed in the image of the
Virgin of Light. The archons steal power from them and the angels pursue the archons; this
is the cause of lightning. And see the note preceding.

151 Keph. 153,29, “archons of death”; 153,34, “warrior of destruction.”

152 Keph. 169,5-8, “But when the robbery is on the side of Gemini, Libra and Aquarius,
there is a loss and diminution everywhere in the seal (?) of mankind.”

153 Keph. 169,29-170,1, “this whole world above and below answers to the form of the
human body, while the fashion of this body of flesh answers to the form of the cosmos.”

154 Keph. 124,15-17, “but the root of man ... is not in the whole earth, but only in this
southern world.”

MANICHAEANS

257

28.1 And I shall also telly ou how the soul is reincarnate in other bodies . 155
First a little of it is purified, and then it is put into the body of a dog or camel,
or another animal. But if a soul has committed murder, it is put into the
bodies of lepers . 155 If it is found to have reaped grain, it is put into stammer-
ers. ( These are the names of the soul: reason, mind, intelligence, thought,
understanding .) 157

28.2 But reapers, who reap grain, are like the archons who were in the
darkness 158 at the beginning, when they ate some of First Man’s armor. Thus
they must be reembodied in grass, beans, barley, wheat or vegetables 159 so
that < they too > may be reaped and cut down. (3) Again, if someone eats
bread 160 he must become bread himself and be eaten. If one kills a bird, < he
too > will be a bird. If one kills a mouse, he will also be a mouse . 161 (4) And
again, if one is rich in this world, he must be reembodied in a poor man when
he leaves his tabernacle, so that he may go begging and after this go away
to eternal punishment . 162

28,5 Since this body is the body of the archons and matter, whoever plants
a persea must pass through many bodies until that persea is planted. But if
anyone builds a house , 163 bits of him will be put into all the kinds of bodies
there are. Whoever bathes 164 plants his soul in the water. (6) And whoever
does not give his alms to the elect will be punished in the hells and reincar-
nate in the bodies of catechumens until he gives many alms. And for this
reason they offer the elect whatever food is their choicest . 165

155 Cf. Keph. 223,29-31; 225,8-11; 27-28; 249,32-250,3 et al.

156 Cf. Tit. Bost. Man. 2.35.

157 These are regularly called the “limbs” of the soul; cf. Keph. 76,16-25.

158 Keph. 26,13, “the whole hand of archons, which is in the world of darkness”

159 Henning, “Bet- und Beichtbuch,” APAW 1936, No. 10, pp 32-33, “Wenn (ich)
zulasse . . .(er) die fiinf pflanzlichen Geschopfe, seien sie feucht oder trocken, entzweitritt
oder zerstiickelt, verletzt oder zerreisst . . .”

160 At CMC 97,11-17 Mani says that Elxai, the founder of the “baptists,” at the bidding of
the bread itself, forbade his followers to hake bread.

161 Klimkeit p. 169 ( Confessional Text for the Elect, Sogdian with Persian citations) “If
(I should have allowed) the weight of my body, the cruel [self...] to beat or hurt (that
Light) ... by injuring . . . the five (types of) fleshly beings . . .”

162 Keph. 116,22-25, “Before the dregs and sediment (?) of the darkness were swept out
of creation, [Hells] were established for them to be the receptacle of the dregs until the
dissolution of the world.”

163 Klimkeit, p. 169 ( Confessional Text for the Elect, Sogdian with Persian citations)
“If (I should have allowed) the weight of my body, the cruel [self] to bear or hurt that
light ... by digging or shoveling, building or constructing a wall in the dry, cracked, injured,
oppressed and trodden earth . . .”

164 At CMC 94,5-9 Mani says that a face appeared in the water to Elxai, the founder of
the "baptists,” and forbade him to bathe.

165 Keph. 166,13-16, “But whoever loves (the elect) and deals with them through his
alms, will live and be victorious with them and will be delivered from this dark world”

258

MANICHAEANS

28,7 And when they are about to eat bread they pray first, and ted the
bread, “I neither reaped you, nor ground you, nor pounded you, nor put you
into an oven; someone else did these things, and brought you to me. I have
been eating without guilt.’’ And whenever [an electus] says this for himself,
he tells the catechumen, “I have prayed for you,” and the catechumen with-
draws . 166 (8) For as I told you a moment ago that whoever reaps will be
reaped, so whoever throws wheat into a thresher will be thrown in himself—
or if he kneads dough he will be kneaded, or if he bakes bread he will be
baked. And for this reason they are forbidden to do work . 161

28,9 And again, < they say that > there are other worlds, since the lumi-
naries set from this world and rise in those . 168 And whoever walks on the
ground injures the earth 169 — and whoever moves his hand injures the air,
because the air is the soul of men, animals, birds, fish, reptiles and everything
in the world. < For > I have told you that this body does not belong to God but
to matter, and that it is darkness and must itself be made dark . 110

2g,i But as to Paradise, which is a name for the world: Its plants are lusts
and other impostures which destroy men’s reasonings. But that plant in Par-
adise through which the good is recognized is Jesus 171 < and > the knowledge
of him in the world .” 112 One who takes [its fruit] can distinguish good from
evil (2) The world itself, however, is not God’s but was formed from a part of
matter, and all things are therefore destroyed . 118

166 Cf. Asmussen p.5o(TIIE = 6o2oI, Parthian: Henning, “A Grain of Mustard,” Annati,
1 st. Or. Napoli Sc. 2 Line 6 (1965) pp. 29-30), “(The elect) himself will be saved, he will also
save him who gave the alms-food, and it (i.e., the Living Soul, self) will reach the dome
of the gods unharmed.” Cyr. Cat 6.32 calls this prayer a curse on the catechumens, cf. Tit.
Bost. Man. 2.32.

167 CMC 93,2-11, “See how the disciples of the Savior . . . did not work in the tillage and
husbandry of the soil . . .”

168 Holl: xai acslvoi? dvoiTs^ivTcov; MSS: el; &v dvaTE^ouai

169 Klimkeit p. 169 ( Confessional text for the elect, Sogdian with Persian citations) "If
(I should have allowed) the weight of my body, the cruel [self. . .] to beat or hurt that Light
while walking or riding, ascending or descending, (walking) quickly or slowly . . .”

170 Man. Horn. 6,1-8, “I shall (judge?) my body and pronounce its condemnation, ‘Cursed
art thou, 0 [body] . . . Thy lust is condemned in thee . . . Thy demons shall enter . . . Thou hast
tormented me . . . Thou hast caused [me] to weep . . . year after year I show thee no rever-
ence . . . thou hast brought them upon me. Cursed art thou . . . cursed is he that made thee.’ ”

171 Perhaps cf. Keph. 53,26-28, “Afterwards he planted his good plantings, the tree of
life which bears good fruit. So it is with the likeness of the coming of Jesus the Splendor.”

172 Cf. CMC 84,9-16, “the purity which has been spoken of is the purity that comes by
knowledge, the distinction of light from darkness, death from life, and the living waters
from the astonied,” and many other Manichean praises of knowledge.

173 Man. Horn. 39,22-27, “Then, after Jesus, comes the destruction of the world . . . the
flesh shall vanish altogether and be uprooted from the world. If the . . . flesh is destroyed
and perishes and . . . [the All] is cleaned up. The world . . . and it shall remain waste . . .”

MANICHAEANS

259

The thing the archons stole from First Man is the very thing that fills the
moon, and is cleaned out of the world every day. (3) And if the soul departs
without knowing the truth, it is given to the demons to subdue in the hells of
fire . 174 And after its punishment it is put into < other > bodies to be subdued,
and so it is thrown into the great fire until the consummation . 175

30,1 Now this is what he says about your prophets. There are spirits of
impiety or iniquity which belong to the darkness that arose at the begin-
ning, and because the prophets were deceived by these they did not tell < the
truth >. For < that > archon has blinded their minds . 176 (2) And anyone who
follows their words will die forever, imprisoned in the clod [ of earth ], because
he did not learn the Paraclete’s knowledge . 177

30,3 Mani has commanded only his elect, of whom there are no more
than seven , 178 “When you finish eating, pray and put on your heads oil which
has been exorcized with many names, as a support for this faith. ” The names
have not been revealed to me for only the seven employ them. (4) And again,
< he says > that the name ofSabaoth, which is revered and of great impor-
tance among you, is human in nature and a father of lust. And so, he says,
the foolish worship lust, thinking it is God.

30,5 This is what he says about the creation of Adam. The person who said,
“Come, and let us make man in our image and after our likeness” 178 — that
is, “in accordance with the form which we have seen” — is the archon who
told the other archons, “Give me of the light which we have taken and let us
make a man in the form of us archons < and > the form we have seen, which
is First Man .” 180

174 Cf. Fihrist al-’Ulum (Flugel, p. 101) “Wenn aber dem siindigen Menschen . . . der Tod
erscheint, so nahen sich ihm die Teufel, packen und qualen ihn . . . Dann irrt er in der Welt
unaufhorlich umher von Peinigungen heimgesucht bis zu der Zeit, wo dieser Zustand auf-
hort und er mit der Welt in die Holle geworfen wird.”

175 Keph. 29,12-14, "Blessed is anyone who is perfect in his works, that, at his end, [he
may escape] the great fire which is prepared for [the world] at the end of time.”

176 At Aug. C. Faust. 16.6 Faustus says, “Moses’ tradition is so dissimilar to Christ’s,
and so very different, that if the Jews believed one of them they must certainly repudiate
the other.” In contrast, both CMC 62,9-63,1 and Man. Flom. 75,22 appear to praise the
prophets.

177 Keph. 233,25-27, “one (portion of his sins will be forgiven him) because he knows
the knowledge and has distinguished light from darkness . . .”

178 This might be a misunderstanding of the Greek version of Act. Arch. 63.5, where
the Latin reads, “nomina quaedam invocare coepit quae nobis Turbo dixit, solos septem
electos didicisse,” which means, not that there were only seven elect, but that only seven
of the elect knew the names.

179 Gen 1:26.

180 In the Kephalaia the archons usually make man, in the likeness of Third Messenger.
Cf. Keph. 133,5-134,7; 135.14-26; 157.7-9; 158,3-5-

26 o

MANICHAEANS

And so they created the man. ( 6 ) But they Likewise created Eve and gave
her some of their Lust for Adam’s deception. And the fashioning of the world
from the archons’ handiwork was done through Adam and Eve.

31,1 God has nothing to do with the world itself and takes no pleasure in it,
because it was stolen from him by the archons at the beginning and became
a burden to him. This is why he sends emissaries and steals his soul from
them (Le., the archons ) every day through these luminaries, the sun and the
moon, by which the whole world, and all creation, is taken away. (2) Mani
says that the god who spoke with Moses, and with the Jews and their priests,
is the archon of darkness; thus Christians, Jews and pagans are one and the
same 181 since they believe in the same god. (3) For as that god is not the God
of truth, he deceives them with his lusts. Therefore all who hope in that god,
the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets, must be imprisoned with
him, since they have not hoped in the God of truth. For that god spoke with
them in accordance with his lusts,

31,4 After all this he finally says, as he himself has written . 182 When the
elder 183 makes his image 184 manifest, the Porter will drop the earth 185 outside.
Then the great fire will be let loose and consume the whole world. (5) Next
he will drop the clod < that is interposed > between [the world and] the new
aeon, so that all the souls of sinners may be imprisoned forever. These things
will take place when the image arrives.

31,6 But all the emanations — Jesus, who is in the smaller ship, Mother
of Life, the twelve steersmen, the Virgin of Light, the third Elder, who is in

181 At Aug. C. Faust. 18.5 Faustus argues that on Christian premises, to become a Chris-
tian one must be a Jew. Cf. 1.2; 16.10 and Ut. Cred. 10.14.

182 Neither the identity of the document alluded to, nor the extent of the quotation,
is clear.

183 This is Third Messenger, cf. 31,6. The Greek should be 7ipe(r|3EUTV]s; rather than
7rpEer|3uT»]s; the error is presumed to have originated in the archetype, and persists through-
out Sect 66.

184 Keph. 54,12-19 “until the time of the end, when he shall waken and arise in the great
fire, and shall gather his own soul and form himself into the last image ... he gathers the
life and light which is in all things, and builds it on his body.”

185 Fihrist al-‘Ulum (Fliigel, Mani, p. 90), “wahrend dieses geschieht, erhebt sich der
Engel, dem das Tragen der Erden obliegt, und der andere Engel steht von dem Nach-
sichziehen der Himmel ab, so dass sich das Hochste mit dem Untersten vermischt und es
lodert ein Feuer auf und frisst sich fort in diesen wirren Dingen, und hort nicht eher zu
brennen, bis das, was sich in ihnen noch vom Licht befindet, aufgelost ist.”

MANICHAEANS

261

the Larger ship, Living Spirit, the wall of the great fire , 186 the wall } 87 of the
wind, the air, the water, and the living fire within — have their dwellings < on
high * > near the lesser luminary, until the fire destroys the whole world over
a period of years whose length I do not know . 188 (7) And after this there
will be a restoration of the two natures, and the archons will occupy their
own realms below, while the Father will occupy the realms above, and have
received his own back . 189

31,8 Mani imparted this entire teaching to his three disciples and told
each of them to make his way to his own area: Addas was assigned the east,
Syria fell to Thomas, but the other, Hermeias, journeyed to Egypt. And they
are there to this day for the purpose of establishing the teaching of this
religion.

32,1 These are the passages I have quoted from the book by Archelaus
that I mentioned. And this is the way Mani introduc<ed> the seed of his
tares to the world when he belched out the tares of his teaching. (2) One
could offer quantities of answers to however much there is of this mime’s
slander, as must be plain to everyone. For even if the counter-arguments
are not polished, the mere knowledge that this is what they believe will
be enough to put them to shame, for their tenets are shaky and have no
cogency. (3) For Mani overturns his earlier statements with his later ones,
and says things later that are different from what he has said earlier. He
sometimes would have it that the world is God’s creation, but sometimes
that it comes from the archons and that God bears no responsibility for it,
but that it is slated to perish. And sometimes he says that the firmament
is the archons’ hides, but sometimes that they are crucified up above in
the celestial sphere — < and > that they chase people, and make clouds,
and get excited and wild at the sight of the virgin and the handsomeness
of the youth.

33, r What a disgrace! What could be worse, more disgusting, and more
shameful than for the Spirit of truth to change himself into a female, but

186 Keph. 108,25-29, “By his splendor, by his might, he has poured the fire of the dark-
ness out from all the archons, cast it on this earth, and again, swept it off the earth and
bound it in the vehicle that encompasses the whole world and so is called the wall of the
great fire.”

187 Le Coq, Turk. Man. II, APAW 1904, pp. 38-39, “Fahrzeuge zwer, Jesus der Sonne . . . mit
fiinf Mauern, einer atherischen, windigen, leuchtenden, wassrigen und einer feurigen . . .”

188 At Muller, Handschriftliche Reste aus Turfan II APAW 1904, p. 19, the number of
years is given as 1468. So in the Fihrist al-‘Ulum Fliigel p.90.

189 More typical is Keph. 52,17-19, “The light goes to its own land but the darkness
remains in bonds and chains forever.”

262

MANICHAEANS

sometimes to appear in male form to the archons? It is disgraceful for a
man to get drunk and act and look like a woman. But for women to act
like men and dress in men’s clothes is the most disgraceful of all. (2) And
if this spirit is the Spirit of virtue, and divine, why will it not have been
insulted rather [than glorified] by its inventor Mani? And how can the
archons go wild after having been skinned? Tell me that, Mister! How
were they skinned after being crucified? And if they have indeed been
crucified, how can they run after the power when it disappears?

33.3 Who can put up with the blasphemer, with his declaration that we
draw our nourishment from the archons’ sweat, and that the rain pours
down on us from their dirty fluids? How can Mani drink himself — since
he, along with his disciples, draws his water from the rain? What else
can he be but absurd, to be so mastered by bodily needs that he drinks
sweat?

33.4 There are various degrees of sin, and the unintentional sinner will
not be punished as severely as the one who commits the sin deliberately.
(5) Even if this were true — and perish that thought, it’s the nut’s imagi-
nation — [but if it were true], then people who draw and drink sweat and
dirty fluids without knowing it < are > excusable, and more entitled to
mercy than someone who succumbs to his own frailty and, for no good
reason, is moved to draw and drink water, with full knowledge, from the
archons’ drinks and their other bodily functions.

34.1 And there are many ways in which he has deceived his followers
with his lying mouth. Which of his notions is not absurd? The idea that
seeds of herbs, produce and pulse are souls! (2) To venture <a> joke, to
refute him in terms of his own mythology I may say that if the seeds of
lentils, beans, chick-peas and the rest are souls, but the soul of a bull is
the same, then, on his premises, people who eat meat have more to their
credit than ascetics do. (3) For as his rigmarole goes, he is afraid that if he
eats living things — (4) animals and the rest — he will become like them
himself. < But> on the contrary! For if fifty, or even a hundred men get
together all dine on one bull, as his vain calumny goes < they are all guilty
of murder together* >. But in refutation we must still say that the fifty, or
the hundred, become guilty [of the murder] of one soul, but someone who
eats the grains of seeds will be guilty of ingesting thirty or forty souls at
one gulp! And all the things he says are worthless and absurd.

35.1 For to everyone whose mind < is established > in the Lord, the
signs of the truth must surely be apparent from the true teaching itself;
as a revelation of men’s salvation, nothing is more reliable than the Sav-
ior. (2) This barbarian who has come to us from Persia and has the mind

MANICHAEANS

263

of a slave — being a slave physically never bothered him — says that all
souls are alike and that the one soul is in all: people, domestic animals,
wild beasts, birds, reptiles, creatures that fly and swim, bugs and the seeds
of produce, trees and all other visible things. (3) But our Lord didn’t tell
us this. When he came to save humanity did he also see to the cure of
cattle, and < start on* > the healing and resurrection of dead beasts by
gathering < their bones* >? He neither described this nor taught this to
us, (4) far from it, but he knew the saving of human souls, as he said con-
cisely in the riddle, “I am not come but for the lost sheep,” 190 meaning all
humankind.

35.5 And what does scripture say? “He healed all whom they brought
unto him, that were lunatick and were taken with diverse diseases.” 191
They brought him the blind, the deaf, the lame, the palsied, the maimed,
and he extended his benefaction and healing to all of them; but scripture
nowhere says that they brought him animals.

35.6 Then again, “He came to the parts of Gergestha,” 192 as Mark says —
or, “in the coasts of the Gergesenes,” as Luke says; 193 or “of the Gadarenes,”
as in Matthew, 194 or “of the Gergesenes” as some copies [of Matthew] have
it. 195 (The site was in between the three territories.) (7) “And behold two
possessed with devils, exceeding fierce, coming out of the tombs, and they
cried out, saying, Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou
Son of God, that thou hast come before the time to torment us? We know
thee who thou art, the holy one of God. And there was an herd of swine
there feeding and the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out of
the men, send us into the swine. And they ran violently into the sea and
perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled and told it in the
city.” 196

35,8 And in Matthew we are told of two possessed, but it simply men-
tions swine and does not give the number, (g) But Mark even reported
the exact number of the swine and said, "He came unto the parts of
Gergestha, and there met him one possessed of a devil, and he had been
bound with iron chains and plucked the chains asunder, and he had his

190 Cf. Matt 15:24.

191 Matt 4:24.

192 Cf. Mark 5:1, but this reading is found only in Epiphanius and Theophylact.

193 Luke 8:26.

194 Matt 8:28.

195 Matt 8:28 as read in N c , L, W, X et al.

196 Matt 8:28-33.

264

MANICHAEANS

dwelling among the tombs and cried out, Let us alone, what have we to
do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God? Thou hast come before the time to
torment us. And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? And he said, Legion,
for many devils had entered into him. And they besought him not to be
sent out of the country, but to enter into the swine. For there was there
an herd of swine feeding, and he gave them leave to enter into the swine.
And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (for they were
about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the
swine fled, and told it in the city.” 197

35,10 Then did the divine Word who had become man for us ask in
ignorance, and not know the demon’s name before he asked? No, it is
the Godhead’s way to make the causes of each event clear from through
the lips of persons who are questioned. (11) And here too, to show the
frightfulness and the great number of the demons, he asks the question,
so that the marvelous deed will be made known out of their own mouths.
“And the devils besought him saying, Send us not into the abyss, but give
us leave to enter into the swine. And he gave them leave. And the devils
went out and entered into the swine, and the herd ran violently down a
steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” 198

36,1 What great kindness of God! How he confounds falsehood but
shows his servants the truth, through deeds, words and all of his care! For
he has shown by a deed that the same soul is not in people, cattle and
beasts. (2) If the soul were the same, why did he not refrain from destroy-
ing two thousand souls at once when his aim was to purify one person
or save one soul, the demoniac’s? If it were the same, why did he purify
the one man or < save > the one soul, but permit the demons to enter the
other bodies, or indeed, the other souls?

36.3 Are the deeds of the light not plain to see? Are these words
not “performed in the light?” 199 Is the truth’s face not radiant? Are “all
things” not “plain to them that understand, and right for them that find
knowledge?” 200 Who can hear and look into these things without convict-
ing Mani of stitching together things that should not be stitched, to divert
men’s minds from reality?

36.4 But the offenders in their turn < try to evade the truth* >. I have
even heard one argue in this way: after he had heard this argument from

197 Mark 5:2-14.

198 Mark 5:12-13.

199 Cf. John 3:21.

200 p rov 8: 9 .

MANICHAEANS

265

me the oaf turned round and thought he might get somewhere against
God’s truth. Offering a completely absurd defense < he dared > 201 to make
it out that the truth < agrees > with falsehood, and said, “But he had
reserved death for the swine; their souls escaped from their bodies and
were saved!”

37,1 The stupidity of the people who can’t see, and who blind their
minds, and don’t even listen to what they themselves say! (2) If he had
any idea that the deliverance of souls from the body is salvation, the
Savior should have killed the demoniac so that his soul would be saved
by its deliverance from a human body. He must have loved the souls in
the swine more than the soul of the man! (3) Why didn’t he let the man
plunge into the sea with the pigs and die too, so as to purify and save all
of the souls, the man’s and the pigs’?

37,4 But we have seen nothing of the kind. The Savior calls Lazarus
from the tomb on the fourth day following his death, raises him and
restores him to the world, and not to do him a disservice or cause him
harm. The scripture says, *Jesus Loved Lazarus.” 202 (5) If flesh is evil, why
did Jesus make the man he loved return to the flesh? Why didn’t he leave
him alone instead, once he had died and been delivered from the body?

37,6 And no one should suppose that Lazarus promptly died again.
The holy Gospel makes it clear that Jesus reclined at table and Lazarus
reclined with him. Besides, I have found in traditions that Lazarus was
thirty years old when he was raised. (7) And he lived another thirty years
after < the Lord > raised him and then departed to the Lord. He lay down
and fell asleep with a good name, and like us all, < awaits* > the hour of
the resurrection when, as he promised, the Only-begotten will restore the
body to the soul and the soul to the body and “reward every man accord-
ing to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 203

38-39, 1 204 For if there were no resurrection of bodies, how could there
be “gnashing of teeth?” 205 And don’t anyone make that halfwitted remark
again, “Teeth are made for us to chew with; what food will we eat after
the resurrection of the dead?” (2) If Jesus ate again after his resurrection,
and [took] “a piece of a broiled fish and an honeycomb,” 206 and lived with

201 Holl: EToXpioxv; MSS: evojucte, “expected to.”

202 John 11:5.

203 2 Cor 5:10.

204 Numbered as in Holl.

205 Matt 8:12.

206 Luke 24:42.

266

MANICHAEANS

his disciples for forty days, will there be no food? (3) And as to food, it is
plain that “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of heaven.” 207
And it is the Lord’s own promise that “Ye shall be seated at my Father’s
table eating and drinking.” 208 (4) And what this eating and drinking is, is
known to him alone, for “Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love him.” 209

38-39,5 But now that we have reached this stage of describing the dif-
ferences between souls, < we have explained* > — and on the authority of
the truth itself and its perfect Example — that a man’s soul is one thing,
and a beast’s is another. And Christ did not come to save the soul of the
beast but the soul of the man, since beasts are not judged. (6) For human
beings inherit the kingdom of heaven, and human beings are judged.
“These shall go away into everlasting judgment and these to life eternal,” 210
says the Only-begotten.

40.1 And what do the people accomplish who go hunting for problems?
Whenever they find them and do not grasp the interpretation of the text,
they distress themselves by thinking of contradictions instead of looking
for things that are of use to them — for Matthew says that there were two
demoniacs, but Luke mentions one.

40.2 And indeed, < besides this > one evangelist says that the thieves
who were crucified with Jesus reviled him; but the other disagrees, and
< not > only shows that both did not revile him, but gives the defense of
the one. (3) For “He rebuked the other and said, Dost not thou fear God
seeing that we are in the same condemnation? But this holy man hath
done nothing < amiss >.” And he exclaimed besides, “Jesus, remember me
when thou comest into thy kingdom.” And the Savior told him, “Verily
I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” 211

40,4 These things make it seem that there is disagreement in the scrip-
ture. But it is all smooth. (5) Even if there are two demoniacs in Matthew
the same ones are to be found in Luke. Since it is the scripture’s way to
give the causes of events, Luke mentions not the two, but only the one,
for the following reason. (6) There were two men healed of demon posses-
sion, but one persevered in the faith while the other came to grief. And so,

207 Luke 14:15.

208 Luke 22:30.

209 1 Cor 2:9.

210 Matt 25:46.

211 Luke 23:40-43.

MANICHAEANS

267

because of his perseverance in the faith, he followed Jesus “whithersoever
he went,” 212 as the Gospel says. This is why Luke omitted the one thief and
mentioned the one who is in the kingdom of heaven. And nothing can be
contrary to the true interpretation.

41.1 But the Gospel now gives another reason, similar to this instance,
[for speaking of more than one person] as though of one. The Lord had
cleansed ten lepers and the nine had gone away without giving glory to
God. But the one had turned back and remained — the one who was also
commended by the Lord, as he said, “Ten lepers were cleansed. Why hath
not one of them returned to give glory to God save only this stranger?” 213
(2) And you see that, because of this man’s perceptiveness and his demon-
stration of gratitude, the Gospel mentions the one in place of the ten. It is
a comparable case, since the same evangelist spoke of the thieves.

41,3 For we are accustomed to speak of singulars in the plural, and plu-
rals in the singular. We say, “We have told you,” and, “We have seen you,”
and, “We have come to you,” and there are not two people speaking, but
the one who is present. And yet by customary usage the one says this
in the plural, in the person of many. (4) Thus the Gospel’s 214 narrative
included [many persons] by its use of the plural, but the other [Gospel]
tells us that one was the blasphemer, but that the confessed and attained
salvation.

41,5 And you see that all parts of the truth are plain, and there is no
contradiction in the scripture. (6) But I suppose I’ve made my statement
of the argument lengthy by going over all this scriptural material. Let me
wear myself out by the time the argument takes, but confound < the >
truth’s < opponents* > and, with the truth’s healing remedies, bring joy
to her sons.

42.1 Next, let’s look at the scum’s other teachings. He claims that the
two Testaments contradict each other, 215 and that the god who spoke
in the Law is different from the God of the Gospel. 216 The former god
he terms “the archon”; but in the latter case, < where he posits a good

212 Cf. Luke 8:38; 9:57.

213 Luke 17:17-18.

214 I.e., Matthew’s.

215 Man. Ps. 57,11-14 “[He] cries out in the Law saying: I am God . . . who then led Adam
astray and crucified the Savior?”

216 Cf. Asmussen p. 14 (M 28 I, R If 24-26; V I, 32-34; MM II p. 314), “If he (Adonay) is
the Lord of everything, why did he crucify the Son?”

268

MANICHAEANS

God, he calls him Father, just as the Son* > says that his < Father* > is a
good God.

And if he would only tell the truth, and not blaspheme himself by mis-
take! (2) We ourselves agree with the same proposition, that the good
Offspring of a good Father — light of light, God of God, very God of very
God — has come to us in order to save us. “He came unto his own” property,
not someone else’s, “< and > his own received him not. (3) But as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, who
were born, not of blood, nor of flesh, but of God.” 217 (4) And yet, surely
no one in the world has been born without flesh and blood; all people are
flesh and blood. What were they before they were born in the flesh, or
what can we do without flesh? (5) But since the world is God’s creation
and we are creatures of flesh and born of fathers and mothers, the Lord
came to beget us “of Spirit and of fire.” 218

For we have been born, and that is true, and no one can deny his first
birth, or that he is made of flesh. (6) But our second birth is not of flesh or
blood, that is, it is not by the commerce of flesh and blood. In the Spirit we
have gained a flesh and soul that are no longer carnal, but are blood, flesh
and soul in a spiritual union. (7) In other words, “To them gave he power
to become the sons of God” 219 — those who had been converted, and had
pleased God with flesh, blood and soul.

42,8 Thus He who came to “his own” is no stranger, but is Lord of all.
And this is why he says, “Lo, here am I that speak in the prophets.” And he
told the Jews, “Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me; for he
wrote of me”; 220 and, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he
sawit and was glad”; 221 (9) and, “Thus did your fathers unto the prophets”; 222
and, “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil
against you falsely. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.
For so persecuted they the prophets before you.” 223 And in another pas-
sage he says, “Jerusalem, that killest the prophets and stonest them that
are sent, how often would I have gathered thy children?” 224

217 John 1:11-13.

218 Cf. Matt 3:11.

219 John 1:12.

220 John 5:46.

221 John 8:56.

222 Cf. Luke 6:23.

223 Matt 5:11-12.

224 Matt 23:27.

MANICHAEANS

269

42,10 Now the words, “how often” show that he had taken care to
“gather” Jerusalem through his prophets. For if he says “killing the proph-
ets” in reproof, then he cares for the prophets. But in caring for the proph-
ets he was not caring for strangers, but his own. (11) He says, “And the
blood that has been shed shall be required, from the blood of Abel unto
that of the righteous Zacharias, which was shed between the temple and
the altar.” 225

< And see how he cares for the temple as well; in another passage he
says* >, (12) “And he took them all away, and overthrew the tables of
the money-changers, and said, Make not my Father’s house an house of
merchandise.” 226 And to Mary and Joseph he said, “Why is it that ye sought
me? Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” 227 And the Gospel
is quick to add, “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise,”
as it says, “And the disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of
thine house hath eaten me up.” 228 (43,1) And how much there is to say, in

< words > such as these of the* > Gospels and Apostles, in refutation and

< rebuttal > of Mani’s madness, with his desire to divide and separate the
Old Testament from the New, even though the Old Testament testifies to
the Savior and the Savior acknowledges the Old Testament.

43,2 And not only that, but the Savior testifies that he is the son of
David, as he says, 229 “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right
hand. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” 230 (3) And again in
another passage, when the children cried Hosannah to the son of David
and “He did not rebuke them” — < and when > the Pharisees say, “Hearest
thou not what these say? Bid them be silent,” he replies, “If these were
silent, the stones would have cried out.” 231 (4) For he is David’s son in the
flesh but David’s Lord in the Spirit, and both statements are cogent and
accurate. There is no falsity < in > the truth.

43,5 But so as not to lengthen this argument I shall content myself
with these texts and go on to the others, for the scum’s full refutation.
If the body belongs to one god, Mister, and the soul belongs to another,

225 Cf. Luke 11:50-51; Act. Arch 32.6.

226 Matt 23:27.

227 John 2:16.

228 John 2:17.

229 Holl eauTov ulov AauiS SpapaToupyouvxop, cop Xsyei AauiS, MSS ou povov, dW.dc xai oi
owrdaroXoi, cop Aiysi AauiS.

230 Matt 22:44-45. At Aug. C. Fort. 19 Fortunatus calls attention to the apparent discrep-
ancy between the Davidic sonship and the Virgin Birth; cf. Aug. C. Fort. 22.1.

231 Cf. Luke 19:39-40.

270

MANICHAEANS

what association can the two have? (6) And I am afraid that this modest
person’s small mind is trying to peer into some pretty deep thoughts. So
I shall hold myself in check in order not to give heavy reading to persons
who can refute the cheat completely with one item of evidence. (7) Com-
mon partnership is not to be found in those who differ, but is the work
of one friend or the business of two. Now if the body and the soul are
together, this is the work of one God. For there is no distinction, since
both work duly together and are in agreement.

43,8 But if, after eating the soul as Mani claims, the archons made this
body as a prison for it, how can they lock it up in a body again after it is
eaten? Whatever is eaten is consumed, and whatever is consumed also
passes into non-existence. But something that passes into non-existence
is no more and is not enclosed in any place; there neither is, nor can be,
a prison for it if it does not exist.

44.1 But Mani often loses track of his own notion, forgets what he
has said, and unknowingly again breaks down what he once built up. He
sometimes claims that the soul has been eaten < and has vanished, even
though* > he declares that it is shut up in the bodies that presently exist.
But sometimes he decides that it has been snatched from on high from
the good God’s armor by the archons, so that it has not been eaten yet but
is being held prisoner.

44.2 But at times he says in disagreement with this that the soul has
been taken prisoner and < defeated* >, but tells the same story in a differ-
ent way, (3) claiming that it has been set out as bait, of its own free will,
by the power on high 232 — like a kid thrown into a pit to catch a beast of
prey, which is excited and leaps down get the kid, < and thus* > the beast
itself is caught.

44,4 Now suppose that the power on high — that is, the good God, or
the "light,” as Mani calls it — did send the “kid,” < a bit of > its own power.
In the first place, even if he catches the beast, the kid will be eaten up in
the meantime. And rather [than helping itself], the power on high will
harm itself by offering part of itself as food for the beast, to catch the beast
with the part it sees fit to lose. (5) And it will no longer conquer the beast
because of its power and supremacy, and the might of its reason and will;

232 Man. Ps. 9,31-10,7, "Like unto a shepherd that shall see a lion coming to destroy his
sheep-fold: for he uses guile and takes a lamb and sets it as a snare that he may catch him
by it; for by a single lamb he saves his sheep-fold. After these things he heals the lamb that
has been wounded by the lion: this too is the way of the Father, who sent his strong son.”
And cf. Act. Arch. 28.2.

MANICHAEANS

271

to enable itself to master the beast it employs all sorts of schemes, and
plays the knave. (6) And even if the beast is caught, the good God will still
have lost the kid that got eaten, from a part of himself — assuming that he
can catch the beast at all.

44,7 For if the power on high sent the soul here to catch and bind the
principalities and authorities, he has not achieved the goal he planned on.
(8) Even though he sent the soul to catch, it has been caught. Although he
sent it to trap, it has been trapped. For it came from a pure essence and
was subjected, first to the prison of the material body, and then to many
enormities of sins. And the fraud’s argument, and the offender’s teaching,
fail in every respect.

45,1 Now then, let’s see too about Mother of Life. Mani says that she
too was emitted < from the > power < on high >, and that Mother of Life
herself < emitted > both First Man < and > the five elements which, as
he says, are wind, light, water, fire and matter. (2) Putting these on as
battle gear, First Man went below and made war on the darkness. But
during their battle with him the archons of darkness ate part of his armor,
that is, the soul.

45,3 What low comedy on the scum’s part! What < efforts > to prove an
unintelligible joke and an absurd story! 233 Mani is positively attributing
powerlessness to God, absolutely ascribing ignorance to God the omni-
scient! (4) For the God who emitted Mother of Life, as Mani says, is to be
blamed either for not knowing what would be produced from Mother of
Life, or for not knowing that the events which occurred contrary to his
expectation < had* > turned out other than < he thought they would* >.
(5) For whoever expects things to happen, but finds that something else
has happened later against his wishes, must be charged with ignorance.

45,6 For Mother of Life, whom Mani calls a power, < is born of God* >
as his emanation, something it is “a shame even to say.” 234 No one of
sound mind can suppose that there is anything female in the Godhead.
(7) But this female too, says Mani, emitted First Man < and the five ele-
ments as a mother bears a child >. And in a word, Mani imagines the First
Man < he speaks of >, 235 and Mother of Life, in terms of our experience.
For by “man” we mean [the first man] on earth, and by the “mother < of
life >” 236 who bore us, the woman God created for Adam.

233 Holl EmyEipvjpaxa, MSS xd Eirixeipci.

234 Eph 5:12.

235 Holl ov qjvjcrlv, MSS xvjv (puorv.

236 Holl xvjp MSS e x xvjp

272

MANICHAEANS

45,8 But, based on his own thinking, the oaf imagines that there are
the same sorts of thing in heaven that there are on earth — though as the
sacred scripture everywhere teaches, this cannot be. (9) For scripture
says, “There are celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” 237 And < the
apostle > had not yet given any description of the things above the heav-
ens, but only of these visible things, which are body — I mean < the bod-
ies of > the sun or moon, or the creatures on earth and the bodies of the
saints — or so, with all humility, I suppose. (10) I have no way of deciding
whether, because of the apostle’s profound capacity for knowledge, there
was also to be a discussion < of > the realms above the heavens. But in
any case it has been said that < heavenly things > are very < different >
from earthly; how much more the things above the heavens? < All right >,
Mister, how can they be compared with things on earth?

46,1 And what else can you be doing but < imagining* > First Man < as
well* > — who, you say in turn, made wind, light, fire, water and matter
for his armor < to fight with the darkness* >? (2) If First Man is from on
high, and yet has come here in order to make his armor 238 and emit it to
protect and strengthen himself, then the things that are in this world must
be more powerful than the one who came down < from > the heavens.
(3) For “water” is the water we can see, “light” is visible light, “matter” is
‘what you claim is in decay; “wind” is what sounds in our ears, and “fire”
is this fire which we use every day for our needs.

46,4 And if he battles the archons with such things, tell us, what gets
the battle started? Who is to be our commanding officer and blow the
trumpet? Should we break through the ranks, should we combine to
oppose the wings? (5) Who should cast the first spear — going by the rav-
ing maniac’s < talk > — at the stuff of the archons and authorities? (6) Does
the wind fight, Mister? Does matter, which you say is in decay? Does fire,
which the Lord has made for our use? Does light, which gives way to
darkness at the successive intervals ordained by God? Does water? How?
Explain your vaporings!

237 1 Cor 15:40.

238 Epiphanius assumes that First Man must obtain the elements from the earth.
Manichean teachings make these elements heavenly: Keph. 69,27-31, “At this very same
time the First Man drew near to his clothing, the shining gods, and spoke with them,
(saying) that he would surrender them ... He [appeared] to them and made them aware
of everything ... He clothed himself with them and put them in order . . .”

MANICHAEANS

273

46,7 In fact we see that, really, [both] good and evil deeds are done with
these elements. Sacrifices are offered to idols by fire, and the fire does not
object, or prevent the sin. Daemon-worshipers pour libations of sea water,
and no one attempting folly with water has ever been stopped. (8) How
many pirates have committed murders with sea water? If anything, water
is not opposed to the archons of wickedness, as you call them. Instead,
water is their ally, though the water is not responsible; every human being
is responsible for his own sin. And how much you talk!

46, g What good did manufacturing armor and wearing a breastplate
made of the elements do your First Man, he who came down to fight and
was swamped by the darkness? For you claim that the Man was oppressed
there below. (10) But the Father heard his prayer 239 you say, and sent
another power he had emitted, called Living Spirit. (11) Raise your mask,
Menander, you comedian! That is what you are, but you conceal yourself
while you recite the deeds of adulterers and drink. For you say nothing
original — you mislead your dupes by introducing the Greeks’ works of
fiction in place of the truth. (12) Hesiod, with his stories of the theogony,
probably had more sense than you, and Orpheus, and Euripides. Even
though they told ridiculous stories, it is plain that they are poets and made
things up that were not real. But to compound the error, you tell them as
though they were.

47,1 You claim that this Living Spirit came below, offered his right
hand, and drew your so-called First Man out of the darkness, he being
in danger below in the depths — he who had descended to save the soul 240
when it had been eaten, and could not save it but fell into danger himself.
(2) Though he was sent on a mission of rescue he was endangered, and
someone else was needed to be sent to his rescue! (3) How much more
endangered must the soul be when the First Man, when he came, was
endangered on its account?

But there was a second messenger sent to the rescue, which you say was
Living Spirit. (4) Did the Father change his mind, then, and send some-
one still more powerful to be the savior of First Man? Or was he at first
unaware that First Man lacked the power, and did he think that he would
save the soul? < But > did he find this out by experience later when First

239 Keph. 38,32-39,2, "He bowed his [knee as he prayed] to the God of truth and all the
aeons of light who belong to the house of his people and as he petitioned for a power to
accompany him when he would withdraw . . .”

240 Keph. 76,34-36, “Again (the First Man) [is like a man] whose two sons have been
taken from him . . . [he] came to them to save them.”

274

MANICHAEANS

Man fell into danger, and emit [Living Spirit] and send [him]? (5) What
a lot of nonsense, Mani! Your silly statement of your whole teaching is
incoherent gibberish.

47.6 Lie claims in turn that Spirit descended, offered his right hand,
and drew the endangered First Man up. Because of this mystery he taught
his disciples to offer their right hands when they meet as a sign, as though
they have been saved from darkness. (7) For he says that everything, with
the sole exception of himself, is in darkness. Well, to make a joke, blind
men avoid bad words better than the sighted, and see a great deal by
hearing.

48,1 And next, to make other devices and furnishings for us, Mani
claims — as though he had been there, though he is imagining things with
no existence — that this Living Spirit then made the world. Clothed with
three powers himself he too descended, brought the archons up, and cru-
cified them in the firmament, which is their < body >, the sphere. (2) And
yet the oaf does not realize how he contradicts himself with his “brought
them up,” and how he finds fault with things he commends and makes
the things he finds fault with commendable — like a drunkard who goes
staggering around and babbling one thing after another.

48,3 For he claims that the archons in the darkness below are made
of evil stuff, and that < the realms below* > are the place of corruption.
(4) Now if, when Spirit forcibly brought the archons up from this corrup-
tion and dark realm to < the > heights — as a punishment, if you please! —
if he brought about their departure from evil places and drew them aloft
for a punishment, the realms above cannot be good, and made of the stuff
of life. They must be made of the stuff of death; and the realms below
cannot be a punishment, but must be of a nature somehow good. (5) And
because Spirit meant to move the archons as a punishment, as a way of
punishing them he took them from pleasant, familiar places to a place of
punishment.

48.6 And here is a different argument. If Spirit made the world, why
do you say, on the contrary, that the world was not made by God? And
if the firmament is the archons’ body, to which cross did Spirit fasten the
archons? For you sometimes say that they are fastened in the firmament,
but sometimes declare that the firmament itself is their body. 241 (7) And

241 Cf. Bar Khoni at Pognon p. 188, “Alors 1 ’Esprit ordonna a ses trois fils que 1 ’un tuat,
que I'autre ecorchat les Archontes, fils des tenebres, et qu’ils amenassent a la Mere de la
Vie. La Mere de la Vie tendit le ciel de leurs peaux; elle fit onze cieux, et ils jeterent leurs
corps sur la tierre de tenebres.”

MANICHAEANS

275

your arguments show a great inconsistency, with no correspondence with
the truth. < You are defeated* > everywhere you have assailed us — assailed
yourself, rather, and those who have adopted your opinion.

49.1 Then in turn the same man says that after crucifying the archons
in the sphere Spirit made the luminaries, which are remnants of the soul.
(2) What confused doctrine, and what false and incoherent statements!
Any “remnant” is a part of a whole, but the whole is larger than the rem-
nant. (3) If, then, the luminaries are the remnants Mani should show us

< something > larger than the luminaries, so that we can see the soul!
(4) But if the whole has been eaten and consumed, and the luminaries
are its remnants, since they are beneath the crucified archons they will get
eaten too, because the archons have the position on top. (5) But if they
can no longer remain in possession of the soul and luminaries because of
being crucified, then, Mani, your silly account is wrong!

49,6 Then in turn the same man teaches that after rebuking the Porter,
Matter created all growing things for herself. And when they were sto-
len by the archons the great archon called all the archons and the chief
of them, took one power apiece from them, made a man in First Man’s
image and imprisoned the soul in him. This is the reason for the combina-
tion [of soul and body]. (7) But Living Father is kind and merciful, says
Mani, and sent his beloved Son to the soul’s rescue when he saw the soul
oppressed in the body. For Mani claims that he was sent for this reason,
and because of the Porter. (8) And on his arrival the Son changed himself
into the likeness of a man and appeared to men as a man, and men sup-
posed that he had been begotten [like a man], (g) Thus he came and did
the creating which was intended for men’s salvation, and made a device
with twelve water jars, which is turned by the sphere and draws up the
souls of the dying. And the greater luminary takes these with its rays, and
purifies them, and transfers them to the moon; and this is how what we
call the moon’s orb becomes full.

50.1 And do you see how much there is of this charlatan’s silly nonsense
and drunken forgetfulness? For he consigns his own words to oblivion,
whatever he seems to say he revises and reverses, demolishing his own
doctrines by describing them in a whole series of different ways. His later
teachings destroy his earlier ones and he rebuilds the things he originally
demolished, (2) as though to show that they are not his own but that,
like the delirious, he is driven by an unclean spirit to tell one story after
another.

50,3 For he either means that the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ

< came before the creation of the stars, or that the stars were made long

276

MANICHAEANS

after the creation of the world. But it is obvious* > that the advent came
many years after the creation of the luminaries and the thing Mani calls
the “device” of the twelve water jars. (4) The stars have been in the sky
ever since their creation. Whether they prefer to call them “elements” or
“intervals and measurements of the sky,” they have all been put in place
since the fourth day of creation, “well,” and not to the harm of God’s sub-
jects. (5) But Christ’s advent < came* > in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar. < For* > he began his preaching < at this point* >, thirty years after
his birth, coincidentally with the 5509th year of creation and the thirtieth
of his age — [and] until the crucifixion in his thirty-third year.

50,6 Now [if Christ came and made them], why were these in the sky
from the beginning, the luminaries and stars? But if he says that Christ
came before this to make them, his nonsense is confused. What he calls
elements, and the twelve “water jars” as he futilely terms them, and the
“device” by which 242 he wants to deceive his dupes with nice names, were
made before man was on earth.

51,1 For it is plain to anyone with sense, from the scripture itself and
its sequence, that all the stars and luminaries were made on the fourth
day of creation, before the making of Adam the first man. (2) But Mani
says, “He came in the form of a man to make the twelve water jars, and
appeared to men < as > a man.” Since he does not even know God’s origi-
nal provision he thinks he has something to say. Like a blind man serv-
ing as his own guide he tells the people he has blinded whatever lies are
handy. (3) But when the truth arrives and opens < up > the eyes of the
wise, it makes a joke of his nonsense. To which men did Christ “appear”
when there weren’t any? How could he “appear in the form of a man if he
didn’t take a body?” (4) And if he did things during his advent in the flesh,
when he “appeared” to be a man but wasn’t one, the things he did were an
appearance. In that case he neither appeared nor came!

51,5 For if he was not real when he came, neither did he come at the
beginning. If he was supposed to be a man but was not a man, what
impelled God’s Word to appear as a man when he was not one? Unless
he was being hounded by money-lenders, and wanted to disguise himself
so as to get away from his creditors! (6) But if he indeed appeared and yet
wasn’t there, what sort of "truth” was this? There can be no lie in truth,
as the Only-begotten says of himself, “I am the truth and the life.” 243 But

242 Holl Si rji;, MSS vjv.

243 John 14:6.

MANICHAEANS

277

life cannot die and the truth cannot be subject to change, or it would
jumble the truth up and no longer be truth. (7) And Mani’s dramatic piece
is a failure for every reason. Neither were the stars created after Christ’s
advent, nor were there human beings before the creation of the stars. And
as I have just shown, the fraud Mani is confounded, both by the latter fact
and by the former.

52.1 But on the subject of the moon, he says that its orb is filled with
souls. Now how could the moon’s orb get full before anyone on earth had
died? How could the one soul, the first person to die after the nine hun-
dred and thirtieth year of Adam’s life, 244 fill the moon’s orb? (2) Or why
were the 930 years also called “< the > times,” if the moon did not wax,
wane and run its appointed course, not by being flooded with souls but
by God’s command because it had the ordinance of his wisdom? (3) But
Mani says that all living things are filled with the same soul — thus equat-
ing the souls of a man, a mouse, a worm, and the other bodies the origins
of which are nasty.

52,4 But now for the rest of his nonsense. [When he says] how the
virgin appears to the archons, sometimes in the shape of a man but some-
times in that of a woman, he is probably describing the passions of his
own lusts and reflecting his daemon’s hermaphrodism. (5) Then he says
that when the chief archon is robbed by the so-called virgin he emits his
clouds, causes pestilence and begins cutting the roots, and thus the result
is death. (6) And yet the oaf has not seen that what he disparagingly calls
“death” should rather be called “life,” because of deliverance from bodies
of the soul. (7) But if the archons have any inkling that the soul’s residence
in a body is an imprisonment, the chief archon will never do such a thing
as to release the soul, which Mani claims he holds captive, from prison.
And how much absurdity is there in this tricky teaching?

53.1 But their other complete absurdities, such as their so-called “elect.” 245
They have been “chosen,” all right — by the devil for condemnation, in
fulfillment of the words of scripture, “and his choice meats.” 246 (2) For
they are drones who sit around and “work not, but are busybodies,” 247

244 Epiphanius overlooks, for the moment, the death of Cain.

245 Keph. 166,4-9, “At the time when I leave the world and enter the house of my
people, all my elect will be drawn to me, and I will gather them in that place, and draw
each one of them to me at the time of their departure. I will not leave one of them in the
darkness.”

246 Hab 1:16.

247 2 Thes 3:11.

278

MANICHAEANS

“knowing < neither what they say nor whereof they affirm* >.” 248 The holy
apostle denounces them because of his prophetic knowledge that certain
idle, stubbornly evil persons will be making their rounds, 249 not by God’s
teaching but because the devil has made them crack-brained. (3) < For >to
give a parody of the occupation of these idlers he says, “If any does not
work, neither let him eat!”

53,4 Manicheans instruct their catechumens to feed 250 these people
generously. They offer their elect all the necessities of life, so that < who-
ever > gives sustenance to elect souls may appear supposedly pious.

(5) But silly as it is to say, after receiving their food the elect all but put
a curse on the givers under the pretense of praying for them, by testify-
ing to their wickedness rather than their goodness. For they say: “I did
not sow you. I did not reap you. / did not knead you. / did not put you
into the oven. Someone else brought you to me and I eat. I am guiltless.”

(6) And if anything, they have stigmatized as evildoers the persons who
feed them — which, indeed, is true. No one who denies that God is the
maker of all should take nourishment from God’s creatures < except > as
an ironical gesture.

53,7 The elect do not cut the cluster themselves but they eat the clus-
ter, which shows them up as out-and-out drunkards rather than persons
with a grasp of the truth. (8) For which is the worse? The harvester cut the
cluster once, but the eater tormented and cut it many times over, with his
teeth and by the crushing of each seed, and there can be no comparison
between the one who cut it once and the one who chewed and crushed it.
(9) < But they do this* > only to give the appearance of < abstaining from
God’s creatures* >, < while proving by their* > phony behavior how much
evidence of the truth Mani has.

54,1 Then again he speaks impudently of Paradise, which is what he
says the world is. The trees in it are < evils* >, he says — for anything we
approve of, he denies, to show that he is truly the serpent’s dupe. Just
as the horrid serpent corrupted the ear of the blameless Eve, so also he
corrupts the ears of Mani. (2) For Mani says that what we call trees in

248 1 Tim 1:7.

249 Manichean sources indicate that the behavior of the elect sometimes gave scandal;
cf. the chapter, ‘The Catechumen Who Found Fault with the Elect (and Asked) Why He
Was Irritable,” Keph. 219,2-221,7. Augustine portrays the elect as unpleasant people at Mor.
Man. 2.29-31.

250 Keph. 189,6-11, “He who shall [give] bread and a cup of water to one of my disciples
in God’s name, in the name of the truth I have revealed, he shall become great before God
and surpass the four great kingdoms in their greatness."

MANICHAEANS

279

Paradise are the deceits of lusts, which corrupt men’s reason. But the tree
in Paradise whereby they learn to know the good is Jesus himself, the
knowledge in the world. And anyone who takes that fruit can tell good
from evil.

54.3 And you see how he perverts everything that is right, although
the apostle expressly and emphatically teaches, “I fear lest by any means,
as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should
be corrupted from the simplicity and innocence that is in Christ.” 251 And
see how he pronounced him a fraud and villain, and the deceiver of Eve.
(4) And once more, in another passage the same apostle says, “A man
ought not to have long hair, forasmuch as he is the glory and image of
God.” 252 And you see how he called hair the glory of God, though it is
grown on the body and not in the soul. (5) And afterwards he says, “Adam
was not deceived, but the woman sinned by falling into transgression.
Notwithstanding, she shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in
the faith.” 253 And see how the real truth is proclaimed in the sacred scrip-
ture, while Mani makes futile boasts — or rather, makes himself ridiculous
in the eyes of persons of sound mind.

54,6 Then again he explains here that the world is not God’s but has
been made from a part of matter. But because he is not consistent, but
goes back and forth plastering over the places he builds up and pulls down,
it is plain to everyone that this sort of doctrine is the doctrine of a fool.

55,1 He describes transmigrations of souls from body to body, plainly
borrowing this lie from Plato, Zeno the Stoic, or some other victim of delu-
sion. (2) For how can the soul get into one body from another? If bod-
ies came ready-made and received souls in this condition, his pompous
fiction would have some plausibility. (3) But since the embryo develops
from a tiny drop, how did the soul find such a broad passage into so small
a body? For this is how bodies are formed; what Mani says cannot be
proved.

55.4 Neither do souls migrate from body to body; no body is formed
in any living thing without the intercourse of female with male and male
with female. Now, is this the way the soul has come to be, to climax the
tramp’s theater piece with the union of two bodies? And people who even
think such things are very strange.

251 2 Cor 11:3.

252 1 Cor 11:7.

253 1 Tim 2:14-15.

28 o

MANICHAEANS

55,5 But not to alter things that deserve respect, I am content just to
give a glimpse of the subject, as though from a distance. I shall pass on
from such a degrading idea; all suppositions of this sort are outrageous.
(6) For if there is a migration of souls from body to body, and someone
who was once a man later < becomes > a dog, why isn’t a dog born from a
man or an ox? Why isn’t a bird? If indeed it should be that some monster
is born during the immensely long course of history, this happens for a
sign. (7) Even nature knows its own boundaries and does not change a
man’s nature and make him, contrary to nature, into something else. Nor
does it change the nature of any beast; the same kind is born of each kind.
(8) And if a different kind of body is never born from a body, how much
more does a human soul not migrate into a different body?

55,9 And why is the body changed, does he say? So that, if it did not
have the knowledge of the truth while it was in a man, it will be born in
a dog or horse and disciplined 254 and return to a human body knowing
the truth, (10) and be taken up into the moon’s orb now that it has come
to knowledge. And it is amazing to see that the soul was ignorant when
it was born in a man although men have schools, grammarians, soph-
ists, innumerable trades, and speech, hearing, and reason — but rather, it
came to knowledge when it was born in a pig! This shows that, if anything,
Mani’s promise of knowledge is for pigs, because of his imposture and
impiety.

56.1 As to Adam’s creation, Mani gives a substitute version and inter-
weaves it with error. He says that the person who said, “Let us make man
in our image and after our likeness,” 255 < is the archon, who said it to the
other archons* >. And Mani adds to this by saying, “Come, let us make
man,” which is not the text, but, “Let us make man in our image and after
our likeness.”

56.2 But the holy apostle refutes him by saying, < “The man is the
image and glory of God.”* > 256 So does the Lord himself, in the Gospel.
The Pharisees told him that it is not good for a man to be by himself, and
that Moses said he should give his wife a certificate of divorce and dismiss
her. (3) And the Lord said to confute the Pharisees, “Moses wrote because
of the hardness of your hearts. But from the beginning it was not so, 257 but

254 A long passage at Keph. 249,1-250,30 explains that, if catechumens are not per-
fected, their souls undergo transmigration as a remedial discipline.

255 Gen 1:26.

256 Holl assumes that the citation which has fallen out here is 1 Cor. 11:7.

257 Matt 19:8.

MANICHAEANS

281

he which made them male and female” — and he said, “For this cause shall
a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they
twain shall be one flesh.” (4) And he immediately adds, “What therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” 258 confessing that
God, that is, his Father, had made Adam and Eve, and that lawful wedlock
has been instituted by him.

56,5 And the holy apostle, the herald of the truth, says in the same
vein, ‘This is a great mystery, but I say it of Christ and the church,” 259 using
the comparison < to confirm the truth oP > God’s creation of Adam and
Eve* > — (6) < and confirm at the same time* > that God created < Eve* >
and that Adam said, “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, there-
fore shall a man leave,” 260 < and so forth >. And God shaped his side into
a wife for him. (7) And < the apostle says nothing else on the subject > 261
that is different, but [simply], “ft is a great mystery.” And if < the apostle
confirms the divine creation* > in the man and the woman and this is
treated anagogically in an allegory, why does Mani, speaking blasphemy
and ignoring the truth, suppose that God’s creatures are abominable and
foreign to God’s truth, and < say that they were made* > by an archon?

56,8 Next, he says, because the soul which had been torn away at the
beginning was a source of distress to the power on high it sent someone,
one time, and, through these luminaries, stole the remnant of itself — the
soul, that is — from the archons. (g) What high hopes we have, and what a
great expectation! God the good, living and mighty is powerless to save —
never mind his own power which has been dragged away from him — he
can’t save the creature he has made and fashioned! Ffe can’t save it except
in some other way, or by the banditry of secretly stealing the power that
has been torn away from him out of the heavens — or so the tramp says.

57,1 But why am I still tiring myself by spending time on his absurdity
in its exact wording? For instance, neither is the wretch ashamed to say
blasphemously that the one who spoke in the Law and the Prophets was
the archon of darkness. (2) How blessed our hopes are, since Christ came
and compelled us to offer gifts to the archon of darkness! For after cleans-
ing the leper < he commands > him to offer the gift which is prescribed in
the Law by the very person who spoke in the Law. “Go and offer thy gift

258 Matt 19:5-6.

259 Eph 5:32.

260 Gen 2:23-24.

261 Holl ouxeti ETEpov 6 djt6crroXo? Eip auTo <paax£i, MSS ouxeti ETEpov auxcp (pdaxsi.

282

MANICHAEANS

as Moses commanded,” 262 says he to the leper he has cleansed. (3) In the
case of leprosy the "gift” was a bird for a sacrifice, and fine flour for a burnt
offering. (4) If the archon of darkness were < the God of the Law* >, the
Word who came from on high — the Son of God who, as Mani says, came
to turn humankind from the error of the archons — would not encourage
the leper he had healed to become their subject. He would encourage him
to escape instead, by teaching him not to do this.

57,5 But he had not come to destroy the Law or < the > Prophets — he
had given the Law himself — but to fulfill them, to show us himself that
unwavering adherence to the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Law and the
Prophets. For the prophets worshiped the same God, and the Law was
given by him. Today, however, the worship is not offered to the same God
with the same gifts; (6) God gave burdensome commands, as though to
slaves, to the men of the Law, since in that way they would be able to
obey. But to the men of the Gospel he gave lighter commands as though
to free men, of the abundance of his loving kindness. (7) But since the
God of the Law and the God of the Gospel are equivalent, and the worship
of neither era has been abolished, this same God is one God, ruler of the
entire world, worshiped by his servants — but worshiped in each genera-
tion as befits his loving kindness.

57,8 And Mani’s imposture is altogether refuted, since the Savior
orders that the Law’s commandments be kept. And [then], after ordering
the keeping of the Law’s commandments, he breaks the Law’s command-
ments, not by destroying them but by fulfilling them. For in place of the
Law’s commandments he orders that other sacrifices be offered to God,
that is, those of piety, goodness, purity and ascetic discipline.

58,1 But again, Mani claims that in the last days the Elder will come
and make his image manifest; and then, when he sees his face, the porter
will drop the earth and the eternal fire will consume the earth. (2) With-
out noticing it the oaf was once again making the earth material, although
he had said a while before that it was created by the Spirit of life. For
simultaneously with this he supposes that the whole world will be con-
sumed by fire.

58,3 And then, he says, after this, the restoration to unity of the two
natures will pass on to the original condition. What a lot of trouble, and
after the trouble nothing contributing to improvement! (4) For if every-
thing is to be used up and consumed after it has been created and has

262 Luke 5:14.

MANICHAEANS

283

come into being, so that the originals of the two natures, the good and
the evil, will remain as they were, this will again be a provocation for the
evil nature to come back, start a war and seize some more power, so that
another world will once more be generated.

58,5 But if this is not yet the case, then evil is going to learn sense and
not be provoked at goodness any more; and [so is] the evil god, who will
declare no more wars on the good God. (6) But if indeed he will ever be
taught sense he will no longer be evil, since after his alteration he has been
changed from his original evil nature. But if indeed the evil god’s nature is
at all changeable, this is surely because it gets changed from evil to good.
And the nature which can be changed to goodness cannot be evil. For evil
can be changed to good even today, and while the world is still going on.
(7) And if he is to be changed, why is he not changed already? And if the
evil god is changed by God’s contrivance so that he can no longer do evil,
the evil god cannot be responsible for himself. The responsibility must lie
with the good God, since he is capable of suppressing the bad god’s evil
but will not to do before its time a work whose time has been fixed.

58,8 However, if evil is altogether unchangeable it can never stop war-
ring and being warred on, and there can never be a restoration of the two
natures. Evil will remain unchanged, and be provoked into doing evil to
the good and declaring war on goodness.

58, g And yet, if evil is always troubled by some desire for the good, it
cannot be evil. 263 In its yearning for the good it desires to draw the good
to itself, so that, by acquiring power from the nature of the good and its
armor, it can feel it is honoring, illuminating, emboldening and strength-
ening itself. (10) For < the* > notion < of the good* > is surely present in
anyone who wants the good, because he expects 264 to be benefited* > by
good < itselP >. And evil cannot be altogether evil since it is found to be
yearning for the good. For anything evil is hostile to the good, just as the
good has no desire for evil.

58,11 But if the power is made of both principles jumbled together, and
the good God can steal what belongs to him, and can attack the principali-
ties and authorities and flay them — can sometimes destroy and do away
with the matter made by the evil god, sometimes make things from it but
sometimes do away with it — then < there can be no difference between

263 A similar argument is found at Alex. Lycop. 9 and Tit. Bost. Man. 1.17.

264 Holl < atiTou ctchMj aaaSai > fmovoET, <v]toO ayc(0oO>, MSS dya0ou uitovofa? tyxeirai
Siavoia.

284

MANICHAEANS

good* > and evil. And< the > stream of chatter the offender has inflicted
on us < will be found to be > wickedness, and incapable of proof.

59.1 Come on, buddy, speak up! Take up your account of the nature of
evil again and tell us-you who arrived in the Emperor Aurelian’s time, and
yet are describing what was before all ages, though no prophet ever fore-
told this, and neither the Savior himself nor any of the apostles taught it.
Unless you play the fool by writing yourself and palming off some forged
books in the names of saints. 265 Tell us where you come from, you with
your primordial principle of evil!

5g,2 If I ask him whether he claims that this principle is changeable
or unchangeable, < he talks incoherent nonsense* >. But I have already
been told that he describes it [both] as [altogether] changeless, and as
changeable at some times but not changeable at others — [that is], not
changeable to evil but changeable to good — so that he earns the world’s
contempt with the two statements. (3) For if evil was changeless over
immense ages, and had only this very name and no other name but "evil,”
who changed the changeless nature of evil many ages later, into some-
thing which was not suitable to it?

5g,4 For who made it change, if it had not yet seized power and gone
to war, and if it had not yet taken armor to strengthen itself and for food,
but had gone for many ages without food or the need of food — [who
made] this thing that had never needed food begin to eat, seek what it
had never sought, need what it had never needed?

5g,5 But if it was changed in nature, what proof can there be of the
changelessness of evil that you teach? And even if he reverted to his nor-
mal condition when he found nothing more to eat, how could a wicked
or evil [god] bear to go on without food for all time to come, once he had
become used to eating and having food? (6) For if, when he was not used
to eating, he could not bear it, but acquired the new habit of eating and
got the soul for his food by stealing it, he will be the more ungovernable
when he is used to foods. And once he has become greedy and acquainted
with food, nothing could induce him to go on without these things, as
your unprovable claim would have it.

60.1 But I shall pass this by, and once more extend the discussion to
other parts of his nonsense. Once again, he claims that the archons will
be in their own territory then, (i.e., at the restoration) and the Father will

265 I.e., the Acts of Thomas. Cf. Aug. C. Faust. 27.9; Adim. 17.2.5; Serm. Dom. Mont.
1.20.65; Cyr. Cat 4.36; 6.31.

MANICHAEANS

285

regain his own. (2) Now who is this person so equitable that he can survey
the boundary of each territory from either side? Why will [the bad god]
heed [him] when he did not heed the truth and the good God at the out-
set? If it is by force that the good God is to prevail on the lawbreaker to
be content with his own and not encroach on the good God’s portion, why
couldn’t he do this in the first place, before the area was stolen at all?

60.3 But why will the two co-exist, each with his respective posses-
sions? If God has any territory, and the other territory is not his, the
Almighty cannot be called almighty or God of all. Nor can the evil god be
subject to the good God; each one has his own realm. 266

60.4 But then, of what can the evil god be the master, when there is
still no world, and no animals or people under his sway? And if he is
evil at all, and matter and corruption, why hasn’t he decayed? If evil has
always been corruption, and corrupts other things but not itself, it cannot
be in decay — not when it corrupts other things, but is perennial [itself]
and does not disappear. (5) But if it remains stable itself, but corrupts
other things and not itself, it cannot leave anything unaffected; the cor-
ruption of some things must surely corrupt others. But if it is the < only* >
thing < left* > in existence, and it will no longer leave anything untouched
but only it will remain, the things that are corrupted by it must disappear.
(6) However, if it is also bad for itself and the cause of its own decay, its
existence cannot continue. I should not say only in the future; it would
disappear < as soon as > it was in being, and would in itself already be the
cause of its own decay and disappearance.

60,7 But all these are the yarns of the fool’s nonsense. Take note of
them, you wise sons of God’s holy church and the Lord’s faith, judge the
tramp, and laugh at his drivel! But he will go back to the misconceived
occasions of it and resemblances to it in the sacred scriptures — < false
ones* > which do not bear that interpretation, but are misunderstood
by him in that sense. (8) All right, let’s give the exact words of the texts
which, as I said, he steals from the sacred scriptures and explains in his
own way — though I have often discussed the same ones < already >, and
refuted them perfectly well.

61,1 In the first place, because he had found something about the name
“Paraclete” in the sacred scriptures and did not know the power of the
Holy Spirit, he smuggled himself into them, thinking that this was what
they meant. (2) And he claims that what St. Paul said leaves room for

266 A comparable argument is found at Tit. Bost. Man. 1:30.

286

MANICHAEANS

him, since the holy apostle said, “We know in part and we prophesy in
part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall
be done away.” 267

61.3 But St. Paul never says this of the Paraclete, though he, with those
who like him were apostles, was counted worthy of the Holy Spirit him-
self. He was talking about the two worlds, this world and the world to
come, as he told those who want < prior > knowledge of the times, “Let no
man affright you by word < or > by letter, as that the day of the Lord is at
hand. For except the son of sin be revealed, the man of iniquity,” 268 and
so on . . .(a citation is missing here)

61.4 And again, when the disciples had met with the Savior and asked
him about the consummation, and he told them, "It is not for you to know
the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” 269

(5) And again he said, “Depart not from Jerusalem, while ye await the
promise of the Spirit, which ye have heard.” 270 This means the Paraclete
Spirit, as he said, “If I depart, he shall come and shew you all things.” 271

(6) But < he said* >, “He shall show you all things,” because of the gift that
was to be vouchsafed them; < for* > the Holy Spirit < would* > dwell in
them to give them a clear explanation of all that they could understand
in this world.

61.7 And as vessels of the Paraclete Spirit, they prophesied here in
this world, as < the scripture says > that Agabus prophesied an impend-
ing famine, and that “Prophets came down from Jerusalem,” 272 and that
“Philip had four daughters which did prophesy.” 273

61.8 But when these prophets prophesy, they prophesy in part and
know in part but with hope await what is perfect in the ages to come,
“when the corruptible is changed to incorruption and the mortal to
immortality.” 274 For < “When this mortal shall have put on immortality, > 275
then shall we see face to face.” (9) For now these things are shown to us

267 1 Cor 13:9-10. Mani is said to use this argument, Act. Arch. 15.3; cf. Aug. C. Faust.
15.6; 32.17; Fel. 1.9.

268 2 Thes 2:2-3.

269 Acts 1:7-8.

270 Acts 1:4.

271 Cf. John 16:7; 13-15.

272 Acts 11:27.

273 Acts 21:9.

274 1 Cor 15:53.

275 MSS oxav tote; FIo/W oxav . . . tote yap |3A£7TopEV. We adopt Dummer’s suggestion,
which follows Diekamp, that Epiphanius quoted 1 Cor 15:54 after oxav.

MANICHAEANS

287

“darkly,” 276 but there “what eye hath not seen here” is prepared. There
perfection is revealed, those things that “ear hath not heard” here. There is
the greatest gift to the saints, that which “hath not entered into the heart
of man” 277 here.

61,10 And you see that no further knowledge was held in reserve for
Mani. How could Mani know it when < he > fell short of his own goal?
He undertook to master Marcellus; he came to Archelaus with the intent
of defeating him and could not. (11) Since he has no knowledge of recent
events, how can he have it of the greater things? When he was caught and
punished, for example, why did he not escape from the king of Persia —
except to show all sensible people that he was a complete liar?

62,1 Again, he cites a text in vain to prove the existence of the dyad he
believes in and distinguish between the two first principles: the Savior’s
words, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit; for by its fruit the tree is known.” 278 (2) And note
his shallow mind, which does not understand the contents of sacred scrip-
ture in any depth! If there are trees they have a cultivator; trees are plants
and have surely been planted by someone. And nothing which is planted
is beginningless but has a beginning. And having a beginning, it will have
an end as well. (3) The corrupt tree was not always there, then, but had
been planted. And this “good tree” is not a reference to all the goodness on
high — for < there is* > goodness unfeigned there, changeless, of ineffable
dignity — < and* > the thought is < not about* > the true holy God.

62,4 But let’s see whether Mani is right about the business of trees, and
take it from there. If we are talking about the devil, I have already shown
often that he was not created evil; God made nothing evil, and this is plain
to the wise. (5) For if we are going over the same ground, it will do no
harm to give an account of the truth even now. The devil was not wicked
in the beginning; he proved to be wicked. Look here, the point about the
tree won’t be proved from that angle!

62,6 We see too that Saul was a persecutor, but was later persecuted
for the name he once persecuted. We see that Judas was chosen with the
twelve apostles but later proved to be < evil >, and is counted as evil. (7) We
see that Rahab the harlot was not of Israelite stock, but that she repented
later and received God’s mercy. We see that the thief was apprehended in

276 1 Cor 13:12.

277 1 Cor 2:9.

278 Matt 7:18; 20. Keph. 17,1-23,13 treats this as the fundamental principle of Manichea-
ism. Cf. Aug. Fel. 2.2.

288

MANICHAEANS

a crime and hanged on the wood, and yet he confessed and has entered
Paradise with the Lord. We see that Nicolaus was a good man and had
been chosen — but that he proved to be evil afterwards and was reckoned
among the heresiarchs.

62,8 And why give all these examples? What is this evil tree from
which no good can come? Plainly, 279 it is the acts of human beings. Noth-
ing good can come of fornication, no righteousness of the wickedness of
envy, 280 nothing commendable of adultery, (g) The tree of sin itself can-
not grow through goodness — that is, an evil tree does not bear good fruit,
nor < can > the fruit of a good tree < be > evil. (10) The good tree which
does not bear evil fruit < is the human heart which is firmly established
in God and from which, like good fruit, there spring such good works* >
as hospitality, < which is never evil* >. Even if any number of < evils >
result from hospitality, charity does not for < this > reason have the force
of wickedness. [Nor does] purity for God’s sake, continence for the Lord’s,
righteousness for the Law’s.

62,11 These two trees are figurative expressions for righteousness and
sin; but in this barbarous Mani’s opinion, [one] means God and [the
other] means the devil. (12) And yet, it is plain that no one can dare to say
that God will ever create evil — perish the thought! — or that the devil does
good. (13) All good things are made by God, and nothing evil has been
created or made by him. But if certain things are the work of the devil,
see here, < in this case too we have found that God fights on the side
of the faithful* >, that a wreath is woven by him for the saints, the vic-
tors awarded a prize. 281 (14) And Mani’s argument has failed. The evil and
good trees refer to good and evil works and not to the Old and the New
Testaments, as Mani’s argument maintains.

63,1 Moreover, from a desire to furnish occasions of the two first prin-
ciples, he ferrets out and employs the texts he thinks apply, though they
do < not > have this meaning. He says that the Savior told the Jews, “Ye
are sons of the devil; he was a murderer because his father was a liar.” 282
(2) He wants to say blasphemously that the maker of heaven and earth is
the father of the devil, although the text cannot possibly refer to this.

279 Holl 8»]X6v, MSS 7tc4Xlv.

280 cpGovou 7iovv]plap. Dummer, following Drexl, suggests that one of these nouns should
be omitted.

281 This is probably a reference to martyrdom, which is often regarded as combat with
the devil. See, e.g., Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 11.2; in NHC, Apocry. Jas. 4,32-36, etc.

282 Cf. John 8:44.

MANICHAEANS

289

63,3 For if the Jews are in any sense sons of the devil, the argument
about the devil has failed and Mani is unwittingly contradicting himself.
For if their souls are made by the devil it follows that they are distinct
[from the others] and cannot originate from Mani’s mythical power on
high, or be a part of the light or its armor, or the pillar of light, or the
Mother of Light. (4) But if < they are > in any sense the devil’s children, it
follows from Mani’s argument that their father Abraham, whose offspring
the Jews are, is the devil’s son too.

63,5 Well then, why does the Savior say to them in refutation, “Ye are
no children of Abraham, but children of your father, the devil. If ye were
children of Abraham, ye would do his works. For ye seek to kill me, a man
that hath told you the truth. This did not Abraham.” 283 (6) And you can
see that this is colloquial language. The Jews are Abraham’s children, and
yet separate themselves from the Lord by their works, not their nature
or creation — I have previously discussed this. 284 How can the portion of
Abraham’s descendants at one moment be alien to him and belong to the
devil, and at the next be God’s portion? (7) The Savior means this as an
accusation. By his activity and his teaching a man is the slave of the one
to whom he submits, as Paul says, “Though ye have many instructors, yet
have ye not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through
the Gospel.” 285 ( 8) And do you see that he means teaching? And if Mani
accepted Abraham, we would say that Abraham was the son of the God
of light, but that his children were someone else’s!

63, g But this is the reason. The Jews were imitating the murderer, imi-
tating the betrayal of Judas, had hearkened to the slander of the betrayer,
become the children of his denial of God. He himself was a liar, for he
“had the bag and stole,” 286 and said, “Hail, master,” to the Savior, and
heard his reproach, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?” 287 (10) Since he
had become a murderer this Judas imitated Cain who lied to the Lord’s
face and said “Am I my brother’s keeper? I know not where he is.” 288 And
Cain himself had become the < devil’s > son, by imitation and by paying

283 Cf. John 8:39-41.

284 Pan. 38,4,2-9; 40,5,5-8a; 6,1-8.

285 1 Cor 4:15.

286 John 12:6.

287 Matt 26:49-50.

288 Gen 4:9.

290

MANICHAEANS

heed to the lying voice that spoke in the serpent and said, “Ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil.” 289

63.11 This is what the Savior says in the Gospel, ‘Ye are sons of the
devil.” 290 For he says, “Flave I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a
devil?” 291 “Devil” because he was "a liar and a murderer from the begin-
ning, for his father was a liar.” 292

63.12 And this question has been resolved. The Jews were not the devil’s
children, far from it! The Samaritan woman says to the Savior, “Here in
this mountain our fathers worshiped; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the
place where men ought to worship” — (13) and later, after much discus-
sion, the Savior told her, “We speak that we do know, for salvation is of the
Jews .” 293 And the apostle said in his turn, “It is plain that the Lord sprang
from Judah .” 294 And there is a great deal to say about this in refutation of
Mani’s imposture.

64.1 Again, he seizes on the following text, “The light shineth in the
darkness, and the darkness overcame it not.” 295 This means that the dark-
ness pursued the light, he says, since the evil archons pursued the God-
head and fought against it.

64.2 But if the light is under attack and pursued by the darkness, the
darkness must be stronger than the light — since the light runs away from
the darkness and cannot bear to make a stand, since darkness is appar-
ently the stronger. (3) But that is not so. The light does not flee from the
darkness, for “The light shineth in the darkness and the darkness over-
came it not.” 296 But if the darkness did not overcome the light, this is
very different from what Mani means. He says not only that the darkness
overcame the light, but that it seized armor from it as well. Now how ever
could < the > darkness not overcome the light, when Mani declares that
it has seized armor? However, if the light is being pursued, why does it
willingly go on shining in the darkness?

64,4 But because men’s minds had been blinded by the muddiness of
sin, God sent the Law first, giving them light as when a lamp appears, (5) as
Peter says in his Epistle, ‘Taking heed unto the word of prophecy, as unto

289 Gen 3:5.

290 John 8:44.

291 John 6:70.

292 Cf. John 8:44.

293 John 4:20; 22; 3:11.

294 Heb 7:14.

295 John 1:5.

296 John 1:5; cf. Act. Arch. 27.11.

MANICHAEANS

291

a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day star arise, and the day
dawn in your hearts.” 297 For that is the source of the light which shines
in the darkness — the Law which was given "by the hand of a mediator,” 298
through God’s faithful servant Moses.

64,6 Because the Law had always been shining like a spark in the law
of nature, Enoch, saw it and pleased the Lord; Abel pleased the Lord by its
guidance. Noah saw his way by it, and found favor before God; Abraham
believed God by it and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. (7) Then
the light overpassed the dimensions of a spark, and was added to the lus-
ter of “the lamp that shineth in a dark place.” This is the meaning of “The
light shineth in the darkness:” 299 God’s commandment, and the intent of
goodness, which gives light in the hearts of the faithful, within the mind
muddied < by > the wicked things men do — idolatry, the denial of God,
murders, adultery and the rest.

64,8 But when the great Light came, "the true light which lighteth
every man that cometh into the world, he was in the world, and the world
was made by him, and the world knew him not — this light that came
unto his own, and his own received him not — but as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” 300 (g) And do
you see in what sort of darkness this light shines, and what sort of dark-
ness has not overcome it? For the good which is continually sent to the
human mind by God, and which gives light in the world, has not been
vanquished by sin.

65,1 Once more, Mani similarly seizes on the Savior’s words, “The king-
dom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which sowed
good seed < in > his field. And while men slept an enemy came and sowed
tares. (2) Then his servants said unto him, Didst thou not sow good seed
in the field? He said, Yea. They said, Whence then the tares? He said, An
enemy hath done this. His servant said unto him, Wilt thou that we go
and root the tares out? (3) But he said unto them, Nay, lest while root-
ing out the tares ye root out also the wheat. Leave them until the time of
harvest, and I shall say to the reapers, Gather up the tares and burn them,
but store the wheat in the barn, and make the tares ready to be burned
with fire unquenchable.” 301

297 2 Pet 1:19.

298 Gal 3:19; Heb 3:5.

299 John 1:5.

300 John 1:9-12.

301 Cf. Matt 13:24-30 and Act Arch. 15.7.

292

MANICHAEANS

65,4 But when his disciples asked him in the house, Tell us the par-
able of the tares,” he explained and did not conceal it, so as not to provide
the cheat with an opening against the truth. (5) The Lord answered them
plainly and said, “He that sowed the good seed is God. The field is the
world; the tares are the wicked men; the enemy is the devil; the reapers
are the angels; the harvest is the consummation of the age; the wheat is the
good men. (6) < The consummation will come > when the Lord sendeth
his angels and gathereth the sinners out of his kingdom and delivereth
them to be burned.” 302

65,7 Sons of the truth, see that this man who has become our new ver-
sion ofjannes and Jambres puts forth his own arguments against himself.
He himself denies that the world is God’s; yet the Savior has said here
that the world is the field, that the householder and owner of the field < is
God > — that is, his Father; and that it is he who has sown his good seed.
(8) And he did not distinguish souls from bodies or bodies from souls, but
said that the enemy had sown the tares, which are the evil men. And he
does not call men just bodies < or just souls > but said, "evil men,” [mean-
ing both] together. (9) And in turn, he said likewise that the good men are
the good seed < which > the householder sowed in his field. And he didn’t
say their souls, but “good < men >,” with body and soul. (10) God thus sows
the good in men by his teaching, and the devil secretly sows the evil deeds
in men by his mischief.

65.11 But we are not going to find a root of wickedness in this place or
that, but works done by ourselves. And God is in no way responsible for
the tares which have been sown. Christ makes this clear at once by saying,
“while men slept”; he didn’t say, “while the householder slept.” Whenever
we doze off from good works, whenever we neglect righteousness, when-
ever we do not alert our minds to God’s commandment, sins are sown
< in us >.

65.12 Do you see that the reapers get the bundles ready for the eternal
fire? Tell me, Mani, do they bind up souls there? Or do they burn bodies
without souls, or burn the souls too? Your description of the purification
of souls cannot stand up, because they will be consigned to punishment
and condemnation. But so much for this. For the wise, the utterances of
the truth are plain.

66,1 He seizes on yet another text and cites it without realizing its impli-
cations, but with a wrong interpretation of its saving teaching. I mean the

302 Cf. Matt 13:36-42.

MANICHAEANS

293

words of the Savior, ‘The prince of this world cometh, and hndeth noth-
ing of his in me”; 303 < and again, “The prince of this world shall be cast
down >”; 304 and again, in the apostle, ‘The god of this world hath blinded
the eyes of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of
Christ should shine.” 305

66.2 Let’s see < whether > the ruler of this world, of whom the Lord
speaks, will be cast down — for Christ adds, “And if I be lifted up, I will
draw all men unto me.” 306 Whom does he mean by “the ruler of this
world?” And if he means the devil, why does John say of the Savior in his
Gospel, “He came unto his own?” 307

66.3 For we can see that the two following sayings are contradic-
tory. The apostle says, ‘The whole world lieth in the evil one,” 308 and yet
the Savior “was in the world.” 309 How can both of these allow for each
other? And if the whole world lies in the evil one, where is there room
in the world for the Savior, so that he can be “in the world?” (4) And if
the world’s contents are the Son of God’s “own,” 310 what "ruler” exercises
control over God’s own? But if the contents of the world are not the Son
of God’s “own,” what “ruler of the world” would allow the world’s contents
to be the Savior’s own? And if the world is the Son of God’s, why would
he allow a “ruler” to hold his own world prisoner?

66,5 But all the words of the sacred scripture are spoken with wisdom,
as the Lord himself says, “John came in the way of righteousness, nei-
ther eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man
came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man gluttonous and a
winebibber, the friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified
of her children.” 311 (6) And how was wisdom justified by her children?
How but by those who understand wisdom’s words, as it also says in the
prophet, “Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? For the ways

303 Cf. John 14:30.

304 Cf. John 12:31.

305 2 Cor 4:4. Cf. Man. Ps. 172,26-27, “He that ate the sheep is the devouring fire, the
God of this aeon that led the world astray.” The “god of this world” is identified with the
“evil god” at Act. Arch. 175.7; cf- Aug. C. Faust. 20.1; C. Fel. 2.2.

306 John 12:32.

307 John 1:11.

308 Cf. 1 John 5:19.

309 John 1:10.

310 John 1:11.

311 Matt 11:18-19; cf. Luke 7:35.

294

MANICHAEANS

of the Lord are right, and whoso hath the word of wisdom shall likewise
understand these things; but the impious shall faint in them.” 312

67,1 < Mani > has indeed fainted in the sacred and heavenly words, and
been impious with the impious. For the Savior said shortly before this,
“I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”; 313 and here again, he says,
“The ruler of this world shall be cast down.” 314 (2) And if he was speak-
ing of a Satan who had already fallen, why did he need to be cast down
again?

But you will surely say, “[He had to be cast] into the abyss.” All right,
where was the Lord to be “lifted up?” If he was to be lifted from the abyss,
< he needed to go there first. But he spoke while he was on earth, and
was to be lifted up from there* > — < for > the comparison of like with like
assures equivalence of expression.

67,3 But when was he lifted up on earth? He was speaking of his lift-
ing on the cross, and his ascent to heaven to draw all to himself. (4) And
why didn’t he draw them while he was [still] in heaven, but came to
earth instead? He had to come and assume the form of men, in order
to < exalt > the holy vessel < in himself > first of all — [the holy vessel] he
had taken from Mary and formed as his own holy body, the divine Word
from on high, come from the bosom of his Father. Then, when he had
been exalted in his own body, he could draw the persons who were like
him to himself.

67,5 But who is the ruler of this world? When scripture says, “The
whole world lieth in the evil one,” it does not mean heaven, earth, the
sun, the moon, vegetation, the sea, mountains, the air, clouds, the wind,
stars, winged things — it does not mean any part of the creation, perish the
thought! “The world” < is* > human < lust* >, the arrogance of the human
mind, the insolence of human vanity, the boastfulness of human pride.
(6) This, arrogance, was the “ruler of this world” who was cast down. For
the Savior says, “Ye receive honor one of another, but I seek not mine
own glory.” 315

67,7 How could arrogance not fall, how could the ruler of the world not
be crushed, when Herod kept the Judge and Lord of the quick and dead
under guard and judged him? When Pilate sat in judgment on him, a ser-
vant struck his jaw, Judas betrayed him, Caiaphas sentenced him, the Jews

312 Hos 14:10.

313 Luke 10:18.

314 John 12:31.

315 John 5:44; 8:50.

MANICHAEANS

295

spat on him, and soldiers struck his head though he could have crushed
heaven and earth with a nod? (8) This was the arrogance, insolence, and
vainglory of the men of the world; this was the ruler of the world, who fell
to the earth. For all the notables of rank exercise their authority by shout-
ing, insolence, reputation and arrogance, none of which are to be found
in the Savior. For “a smoking flax shall he not quench, and a bruised reed
shall he not break.” 316

68,1 And I have a great deal to say about this. But once more, this same
Mani says that “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them
that believe not, lest they should shine in the light of the Gospel.” 317 (2) If
there is any “god of this world,” what was the Savior doing, entering some-
one else’s territory? And if he coveted someone else’s possessions, this is
no way for a good or a just person to behave. (3) But if he came to save
things which were not his but someone else’s, this is the behavior of a
flatterer whose object is to make his neighbor’s slaves more impertinent
than they are.

68.4 And if he did come to save the possessions of the god of this world,
he was doing the favor for the god of this world himself, by trying to save
his vessels. And if the god of this world assents in any way to the rescue
of his property by the Savior then, even if he cannot save it himself, he is
good, since he is pleased with the rescue of his possessions.

68.5 And then there will be a single mutuality of goodness. For the One
who can, saves, while the one who cannot save his own is pleased with
those who are saved, and feels that he gains by receiving his own, saved,
from the One who can really save them. (6) And if he offers no opposition
to the One who wants to save his possessions, he will be thankful too.

68.6 But if he is thankful to him, < the Savior > will first save the
owner of the saved — to display his goodness in the rescued owner, and
< because >he will not wish to save the less important persons and over-
look the essential one, from whom the saved have their origin.

68.7 Or again, from another viewpoint: If he prefers not to save him
(i.e., the god of the world) and yet saves < the persons > he < has made >,
he is not finishing his task, and is unable to do good in the fullest sense
of the word. But if he cannot save him because his is of a nature which is
unsaveable, but still saves the persons he made — if anything, the ones he
made are worse than he, and incapable of salvation.

316 Isa 42:3.

317 Cf. 2 Cor 4:4.

296

MANICHAEANS

68.8 But to put it in still another way: If he had no possessions of his
own to save and came to someone else’s for show, < to > make a display
of his assistance — what a desperate plight, that cannot save anything of
its own, and goes to foreign territory to show off the act which it could
not show in its own!

68.9 And Mani’s argument about the Savior and the ruler of this world
has failed already. In fact the “god of this world” cannot be another god
different from the real one, or a real other god, perish the thought! God
the Lord of all, the maker of the world, is one God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and never fails.

69,1 As to the god the apostle says the unbelievers have chosen for
their god — I say that there is not just one “god of this world,” never think
it, there are many. To them unbelievers have submitted and been blinded
in mind as the apostle says in another passage, (2) “whose god is their
belly and whose glory is in their shame.” 318 And the Lord says in the Gos-
pel, "Ye cannot serve two masters”; and then a good while later, to show
who the two masters are, says, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” 319

69>3 Very well, "God” is God, and mammon is “the god of this world.”
For most of the human race is caught by mammon and the belly, these
two, and goes blind, not at God’s instigation but by their own malice — for
out of unbelief everyone desires everything and submits to everything.
(4) Thus the apostle says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” 320 And
he curses their wicked propensity for god-making for this reason, and to
curse the lusts of the belly says, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for
meats; but God shall destroy both it and them.” 321

69,5 The god of this world, then, has blinded the minds of the unbeliev-
ers. Thus in the Gospel too we find that the scribe first 322 says correctly,
“What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 323 And the Lord said, “Honor thy
father and thy mother as it is written.” For the commandments of the Law
were not foreign to him, and thus the Lord himself teaches that obser-
vance of the Law is inheritance of eternal life.

6g,6 Then the scribe says, “All these things have I done from my
youth.” And on hearing this the Lord “rejoiced,” to show that the Law’s

318 Phil 3:19.

319 Matt 6:24.

320 1 Tim 6:10.

321 1 Cor 6:13.

322 Holl np&tov xaXcop, MSS npwToc; xod SetiTEpop.

323 For this and the next citation cf. Matt 19:20-26.

MANICHAEANS

297

commandments are not foreign to his Godhead; for by saying that he
“rejoiced,” scripture expressed the agreement of the Old Testament with
the New Testament.

69,7 But the scribe said, “What lack I yet?” 324 and the Lord told him, “If
thou wilt be perfect sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and take up
thy cross and follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. But he
went away sorrowing, for he was very rich.” 325 Then the Lord said, “It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of heaven.” 326 < The rich > cannot enter because
they have been blinded by the god of this world, and have taken mammon
for their god and submitted to the “god of this world,” that is, to covetous-
ness. (g) As Christ says, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is
hypocrisy,” 327 and elsewhere, “which is covetousness.” 328

And to show the effect and consequence of covetousness he says, “They
be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch.” 329 (10) For since covetousness, the god of this world, had
blinded them, neither had “The light of the Gospel shone in their hearts,” 330
for they had gone blind from covetousness. (11) Covetousness also blinded
Judas, also killed Ananias and Sapphira, has destroyed many. This is “the
god of this world.” By their choice of him for their god men have taken to
the honoring of him and despised the Lord, as he says, “He will hold to the
one and despise the other; ye cannot serve God and mammon.” 331

6g,i2 And there you see the literal and plain explanation of the matter.
There cannot be any other god, not in heaven, not on earth, not anywhere.
“There is one Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things,” 332 and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things. The
Trinity is forever, one Godhead, neither receiving addition nor admitting
of subtraction.

70,1 Let us go on again to something else, beloved, and rend the nets of
this beast, enemy and criminal by comparing his heresies with the speech
of the truth, for the benefit of those whose aim is to learn the truth and

324 Cf. Matt 19:20-22.

325 Luke 18:23.

326 Matt 19:24.

327 Luke 12:1.

328 This is a variant reading of Luke 12:1.

329 Matt 15:14.

330 Cf. 2 Cor 4:4.

331 Matt 6:24.

332 1 Cor 8:3.

298

MANICHAEANS

turn their minds away from the erring teaching of every sect. (2) For once
more he seizes on the Law and the Prophets, though he is the enemy
of the truth, and of the Holy Spirit who has spoken in the Law and the
Prophets. Naturally he has, as always, given his tongue free rein against
the God who made all things and spoke in the Law and the Prophets,
“the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all the family in heaven and
earth is named.” 333

70.3 Mani says, “From him (i.e., the God of the Law) comes lust, from
him come murders and all the rest. For he ordered [the Jews] to take
the Egyptians’ clothing and that sacrifices be offered to him, and the rest
of the Law’s provisions — and the murder of the murderer, so that he is
still not satisfied with the first murder, 334 but even commands a second
supposedly to avenge the first. And he puts lusts into people’s minds by
his descriptions < of > women and other things; but he perforce made a
few prophecies of Christ, to establish his credibility by these few plausible
remarks.”

70.4 And these were the words of the insolent Mani, which he impu-
dently utters against his own Master. Observing them, one must see that
there is nothing but delirium in this man. For as someone in delirium who
has a sword draws his sword against himself, cuts his own flesh in his fit
in the belief that he is fighting against enemies, and does not know it,
so Mani is at war with himself because he does not understand the texts
he applies against himself. (5) For if lust is from God and he is the cause
of lust, why does the God who puts lust in people’s heads write against
lust all over the scriptures? It is he who says, “Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s goods, nor his ox nor his ass nor his maidservant nor his field
nor his wife, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.” 335 If he forbids lust, he
cannot be the provider of lust.

71,1 Why, asks Mani, did he order the spoiling of the Egyptians when the
Israelites went out of Egypt? Yes, he did — for he is a just judge, as I have
often said of him by now. (2) And to show that he himself has no need
of sacrifices, he says in the prophet, “Have ye offered unto me sacrifices
forty years, O house of Israel? saith the Lord.” 336 (3) To whom were the
< sacrifices > offered, then? To him, in proportion with the understanding
of the offerers; and God had commanded this, not because he needed the

333 Eph 3:15.

334 Cf. Act. Arch. 44.8.

335 Exod 20:17.

336 Amos 5:25.

MANICHAEANS

299

sacrifices, but to wean them away from polytheism to the recognition of
one God. [He commanded it] because they had seen sacrifices offered
to the gods of the Egyptians, so that their minds would not be changed
because of the polytheism, and they would desert the one and only God.
(4) But when God had dissuaded them from polytheism over a long period
of time and weaned them away from an opinion of this sort, he began to
cut off the things that were not his will, and said, To what purpose bring
ye me incense from Saba, and spices from a land afar off?” 337 “Will I eat
the flesh of bulls and drink the blood of goats?” 338 “1 have not required this
at your hands,” 339 “but to do righteousness each man to his neighbor, and
truth each man to his brother.” 340

71,5 And you see that the meaning behind the sacred < oracles > is
revealed as time goes on. For example, God himself tells Samuel, “Anoint
Saul as king,” 341 but later he accuses them with the words, "Ye have
anointed a king but not by me, and rulers, and 1 did not command you.” 342
(6) And since their minds were set on this, God consoles 343 the prophet
Samuel by saying, “They have not rejected thee, but me, saith the Lord.
But anoint for them Saul, the son of Kish.” The Godhead was dealing with
them as though with little children, to show patience with the feebleness
of the weak and coax the infant out of its weakness. (7) Then, at the very
last, he says, “The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite
heart God will not despise,” 344 “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise,” 345
and whatever other things can be said about this.

72,1 Next this same Mani says that < the God who gave the Law per-
force* > consented to say something about Christ. < And the cheat does
not see how he is confuting himself 4 >. (2) For if he knows the future he
is not devoid of foreknowledge — but the one who knows the events of the
future is God, and he wrote of them in order that they would take place.
And if they were repugnant to him he wrote of them but forbade them,
so that we would not consent to them. (3) But since he guarantees that
those future events will be realized in Christ, the Spirit who spoke in the

337 Jer 6:20.

338 Ps 49:13.

339 Isa 1:12.

340 Cf. Zech8:i6.

341 Cf. 1 Kms 9:16.

342 Cf. Hos8:io.

343 Cf 1 Kms 8:7; 22.

344 Ps 50:19.

345 Ps 49:14.

300

MANICHAEANS

Law and the Prophets, and in the Gospel, is the same. For there is one
concord as God says through Moses, “The Lord shall raise up unto you a
prophet, from your brethren, < like unto me >” 346 (4) and the Lord in his
turn says in the Gospel, “Moses wrote of me.” 347 Moses says, “Every soul
that shall not hearken unto that prophet, shall be destroyed,” 348 and the
Lord, in turn, says, “If ye believe not Moses’ writings, how shall ye believe
my words?” 349 And it is plain on every side that the truth is a shining thing
and “has no spot.” 350

73,1 Again, Mani declares that the testament of the Law is the testament
of death, since the apostle has said, “If the testament of death, graven with
letters on stones, was given with glory.” 351 (2) And the sacred scripture
said not only this, but, “The Law is not made for a righteous man, but
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for perjured persons,
and if there be anything that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 352 (3) Now
because the Law is not made for a righteous man, is the righteous man
therefore a law-breaker? Of course not! But since the righteous man has
already obeyed the Law’s commandments, there is no Law against a righ-
teous keeper of the Law; the Law is against the lawless, and condemns
law-breakers.

73.4 In this way, then, the testament was a < testament of death >. It
said that the murderer should be murdered, the adulterer put to death,
the law-breaker stoned. But “It came with glory,” for its glory was great. It
prevailed over the glory men derive from injustice to one another, and it
was typified by the light of a pillar of fire [and] fearful trumpets with their
loud blasts, < it was deposited* > in the tent of meeting, and came at that
time with great glory.

73.5 For the testament of death had to come first, so that we would
“die to sin” first and “live to righteousness” 353 — as Christ “hath borne
our griefs and carried our infirmities,” 354 “bearing all in his body on the

346 Deut 18:15.

347 John 5:46.

348 Cf. Deut 18:19.

349 John 5:47.

350 Eph 5:27.

351 Cf. 2 Cor 3:7; Act. Arch. 15.12; 32.4.

352 1 Tim 1:9-10.

353 Cf. 1 Pet 2:24.

354 Isa 53:4.

MANICHAEANS

301

cross,” 355 so that first everything pertaining to death and then everything
pertaining to life would be fulfilled in him for our sakes.

73.6 And this is why he died first, to confirm the testament of death.
Then he rose from the dead, that < we might be “changed > from glory to
glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 356 For “He triumphed over princi-
palities and powers” 357 on the cross and “condemned sin” 358 in death. He
buried iniquity by his burial, and broke “death’s sting” 359 by tasting death.
By his descent into hades he despoiled hades, manfully loosed its prison-
ers, and won the trophy of the cross against the devil.

73.7 And see how this glory is the same from Moses until the Lord!
How much more should the testament of life be glorious, when a stone
has been rolled away, rocks are rent, graves are opened, angels shine like
lightning, women proclaim the good tidings, peace is bestowed, a Spirit
is given the apostles by the Lord, a kingdom of heaven is proclaimed, and
a Gospel has enlightened the world? “He that descended is the same as
he that ascended far above all heavens,” 360 (8) and sits at the Father’s
right hand. The testament was not a bringer of death, it was a testament
against death. The testament of death came with glory so that the glory
that excelled it might be [a testament] against death.

74.1 The next thing this same Mani says is, “The Old and New Testa-
ments cannot be those of one teacher. For the one is growing older day
after day, while the other is being renewed day by day. For everything that
grows old and ages is nearing disappearance. The former is the testament
of one God and one teacher, the latter, of a different God and a different
teacher.” 361

74.2 Now what he says might carry conviction if he were able to show
that there are two Old Testaments, on the supposition that there were
two testaments given then. And similarly, if he could show two New Tes-
taments, one could take what he has said to heart. 362 (3) But if the Old
Testament is one God’s and the New Testament is another’s, and the New
Testament is the testament of a good God while the Old is that of a bad
one, the good God would not have known that he should give a testament

355 1 p e j 2:2 ^

356 2 Cor 3:10.

357 Col 2:15.

358 Rom 8:3.

359 1 Cor 15:55-56.

360 Eph 4:10.

361 Cf. Act. Arch. 15.12.

362 Cf. Act. Arch. 52.2.

302

MANICHAEANS

if he had not seen the bad god giving one. And if anything, he would be
taking the occasion for his teaching from the bad god. For if he had not
seen the bad god giving a testament he would not have imitated him,
since he had no experience of affairs. For if he had not seen, he would
not have imitated. (4) And, if anything, the Old Testament ought to be the
good God’s so that, if someone must be called an imitator, it is the bad god
rather than the actual God.

74.5 For the Lord says in the Gospel, “What things soever the Son seeth
the Father do, the Son likewise doeth.” 363 And [he says this] to avoid defer-
ring to a counselor, lest the devil boast that the Savior has done something
by his advice — as the devil tells him, “Command that the stones be made
bread,” 364 but he will not hear of it so as not to be suspected, from his
agreement, of taking the advice from the devil.

74.6 And do you see that he says that the two testaments are those
of one God? The apostle says, “The first testament was given at Mt. Sinai
and gendereth to bondage. For Mt. Sinai is in Arabia. < But the heavenly
Jerusalem is free, which is the mother of us all >.” 365 For if there are two
wives, there is still only one husband, thus, even though there are two
Testaments, there is one God, the giver of the two. (7) And this is why
he did not call two testaments “New,” or two testaments “Old,” but called
one Old and one New. And he says, “A testament is of force after men
are dead; therefore the first testament was not dedicated without blood.
For Moses took the blood of goats and sprinkled both the book and the
people.” 366 Thus the second testament too was given at the death of the
Savior. (8) And above all, both Testaments are in agreement. The one says,
“There shall not fail a ruler from Judah, nor a governor from out of his
loins, until that come for which it is prepared”; 367 but the second says,
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them.” 368 And there is a great deal to be said about this,
but for brevity’s sake I shall omit it.

75,1 And again, he compares the Law and the Prophets to trees which
are withered and old, supposedly taking this from the text which said,

363 John 5:19.

364 Matt 4:3.

365 Gal 4:24-26.

366 Heb 9:17; 18; 19.

367 Gen 49:10.

368 2 Cor 5:19.

MANICHAEANS

303

“The Law and the Prophets were until John.” 369 (2) And nothing could be
sillier. Who does not understand that once < the Law > which the proph-
ets proclaimed was fulfilled, the prophets were finished? If prophets were
still coming and announcing a Christ to come from Mary, Christ would
not have arrived yet.

75,3 For this matter is something of this kind: 370 It is as though a king
who intends to visit a country sends riders, advance men and heralds
before him, and the nearer the king’s arrival the more heralds there are of
his coming, preceding him and proclaiming his arrival in the cities. (4) But
when the king actually reaches the city, what further need is there for
heralds, what for riders, or for the others to proclaim the king’s arrival in
advance, since the king himself is in the city?

75.5 And thus “The Law and the prophets were until John.” 371 After
John had cried aloud in the wilderness and made it known that “This is
the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,” 372 there was no
more need for prophets, to come and announce to us Christ’s advent from
a Virgin. But there was the need of those who had previously proclaimed
his coming in the past, for the confirmation of his coming, since it had
been proclaimed before.

75.6 It is as though someone had a pedagogue, as the apostle says,
“The Law was our pedagogue until the Lord’s coming.” 373 When the per-
son grows old enough and obtains a teacher, he surely does not get rid
of the pedagogue as though he were an enemy. (7) So we too were given
guidance in the Law and the Prophets until the coming of our Teacher.
But now that we have our teacher we do not despise the pedagogue but,
indeed, are grateful to him. He has served as the guide of our childhood,
and set us on our way to the more advanced studies.

75,8 Or, it is as though a man planning to make a sea voyage had a
big ship, but sailed over the open roadstead beside the shore in a little
boat, and the boat took the man to the big ship. The man surely does not
sink the boat because he has reached the big ship, but boards his larger,
safe ship with thanks to the boat, (g) Or to put it another way, suppose
one were exposed in infancy by the mother who bore him, but taken in
by a passerby and reared for some time, and recognized his real father

369 Luke 16:16. Cf. Act. Arch. 15.14.

370 The following series of metaphors may have been suggested by Act. Arch. 15.14.

371 Luke 16:16.

372 John 1:29.

373 Gal 3:24.

304

MANICHAEANS

later when he grew up, and his father acknowledged him. Does he despise
the man who brought him up because he has recognized his father and
is getting his own inheritance? Won’t he far sooner thank the man who
brought him up, because he did not leave him to die? (10) In the same way,
we thank the God who has given us the Law and the Prophets, and we
thank him < who > has counted us worthy of his Son’s New Testament.

76.1 Once more, Mani says that we are kinds of archons, that we were
made by the archons, 374 and that we are held in reserve for them, for
food. But there is a great deal of ignorance in this sort of talk; (2) we can
see that this is not the way things are. Nothing in the world, not even if it
is one of < the > more dangerous, fiercer beasts, attacks its own kind, but
other kinds. (3) Lions do not eat lions, for example, because they are of
the same stamp and the same kind. Even when a severe famine bears hard
upon the beasts in the mountains, and they find no < food > for a long
while because of snow or some other exigency, they live in their caves
and dens, lions with cubs and lionesses, < and do not touch each other* >.
And a beast will not attack a beast, or a wolf, a wolf, (4) unless the animal
goes mad and in its fury does not know what it is doing. (5) Very well, if
a wolf will not eat a wolf because they look alike, how can the archons
eat us, if we are of the same < kind >? Won’t they treat us gently instead,
with the idea of preserving their own kinds? And the tramp’s arguments
are refuted from every standpoint.

77.1 Then again, he seizes on the text from the Gospel, “All cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” 375 And what the Sav-
ior said was not about teaching here, but about eunuchs. (2) However, if
“Not all can receive it,” is here applied to his teaching by the Savior, then,
if they will not receive it, this is intentionally. These people, then, will
be termed praiseworthy or blameworthy by their own choice and their
acceptance of the teaching cannot be by nature. Otherwise, what good
would it do the Savior to give his teaching? (3) So Mani’s argument has
failed in every respect. The Savior did not make this declaration about
teaching, but about eunuchhood, and even if he had said it about teach-
ing, Mani’s argument would not hold good.

77,4 Again, Mani says, “I knew my own, ‘For my sheep know me and
I know my sheep.’ ” 376 But he is a liar in everything. He said this of the

374 Cf. Act. Arch. 16.10.

375 Matt 19:11.

376 John 10:14. Cf. Act. Arch. 28.1.

MANICHAEANS

305

audience at the debate, because he wanted to catch souls by cozening and
as it were setting a trap, so that they would see fit to join him because of
the flattery. (5) Then, once they had joined him, he could begin to boast,
and say that he knew them before they came to him. (6) But the outcome
for him was the same as the Greek myth about the soothsayer Apollo, who
told other people’s fortunes but could not tell his own, and instead failed
in his prediction — (7) for he was in love with Daphne, and because of her
discretion failed to win her. Mani too prophesied that he knew his own,
and actually came for Marcellus, to obtain his submission. But his oracle
failed. Neither Marcellus, nor anyone else who was present on that occa-
sion, was convinced by him.

78,1 Next he said that no one was saved in ancient times, 377 but [only]
from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar until his own day. (Probus
was emperor then, and his predecessor Aurelian, when this Mani was
alive.) (2) And in this too he is completely refuted, since the Gospel, and
the words of the apostles, speak of those who have already been saved.
The Lord likewise says, ‘There shall be required of this generation all the
righteous blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which was shed between the
temple and the altar.” 378 How could Abel be righteous, how could Zacha-
rias, unless salvation were already possible, and because they had already
been saved by the Law and the prophets? < Thus the apostle also* > says,
“Death reigned from Adam to Moses,” 379 to show you that death was
checked, though not altogether destroyed, in Moses’ time.

78.4 For Moses acknowledged the “Finisher” 380 of all things, “Jesus,”
who, when he gave himself for the human race — the immortal dying, the
invulnerable become vulnerable, life enduring suffering in the flesh —
would, through death, break the one who had control of death, and the
sting of sin, and death. Then at last < the words >, “O death, where is thy
sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” 381 would come true.

78.5 For there, in Moses’ time, the death which had reigned until
Moses was restrained and checked. And Abel was righteous before that,
and Enoch, “who was taken away that he might not see death, and was not

377 Cf. Act. Arch. 32.4.

378 Matt 23:35. Cf. Act. Arch. 33.5.

379 Rom 5:14. Cf. Act. Arch. 32.4.

380 Heb 12:2.

381 1 Cor 15:55.

306

MANICHAEANS

found.” 382 (6) But there < was > no written Law yet — only the law which
comes into being naturally from our minds, and by tradition, successively
from fathers to sons. 383 When, however, the Law was given overtly, it
became, as it were, a sword to cut the power of sin in two. But when
the Savior arrived, the sting of death was broken. And again, < when this
corruptible puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality* >,
then death will be swallowed up in victory.

78,7 And see how God saved by many means, but the fullness of
salvation has come and will come in Christ Jesus, our Lord, as the Gospel
says, “Of his fullness have we all received.” 384 (8) And which “fullness?”
‘The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” 385
There, it was “given”; here, it has “come.” If the Law, grace and truth come
through Jesus of < his > fullness, the Old and the New Testaments < are
from the same Testator, who gives them* > in the Law, in grace, and
in truth.

79,1 But Mani has also utilized another text and says that “Christ has
bought us free from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us.” 386
(2) Well then, he should tell us what the sale cost, what price was paid
(for us)! Paul didn’t say “bought,” but, “redeemed.” However, Mani under-
stands the purchase, but doesn’t know the price.

But the truth admits of both expressions. (3) Christ has indeed redeemed
us and bought us “free from the curse of the Law by being made a curse
for us.” And the teacher of the church immediately adds the way in which
Christ bought us, and says, “Ye were bought with a price,” 387 “the precious
blood of Christ, the lamb without blemish and without spot.” 388 Now if we
were bought with the blood, you are not one of the purchased, Mani, for
you deny the blood.

79,4 Tell me, from whom did he buy us? Did he buy us as someone
else’s property? If so, was our former owner out of funds and in need of
our purchase price, and did he take it and give us to Christ? And if we
have been given to Christ, we no longer belong to our former owner.

382 Cf. Gen 5:24.

383 Cf. Act. Arch. 32.9.

384 John 1:16.

385 John 1:17.

386 Gal 3:13. The thought is common in Manichean writings; cf. CMC 16,2-9, "to redeem
the captives from the tyrants [?] and free his own members from subjection to the rebels
and the power of the governors” et al.

387 1 Cor 6:20.

388 1 Pet 1:19.

MANICHAEANS

307

79,5 If, therefore, our former owner no longer possesses us, however,
then he has been deprived of his abundance and has no authority in his
own domain. How, then, can he “work in the children of disobedience,” 389
as the scripture says? (6) But this utter madman who has opened his
mouth without being able to “afhrm that whereof he speaks,” 390 does
not understand how Christ ever bought us, does not understand that we
were redeemed, or how Christ became a curse for us. (7) I can see them
addressing Christ at the regeneration of his coming and crying out, “In
thy name we ate, and in thy name cast out devils. 391 And he shall say to
them, Depart from me ye cursed, I never knew you.” 392 ( 8) How can they
confess him, and he curse them? But what was the curse of the Law? The
curse of the Law was the cross, on our sns’ account.

For if someone was taken in a transgression, the Law said, “And ye shall
hang him on a tree. The sun shall not set upon him, upon his corpse, but
ye shall surely take him down and shall surely bury him before the setting
of the sun, for cursed is he that hangeth on the tree.” 393 (g) Thus, since the
curse had been pronounced because of the crucifixion he himself, when
he came, “bare our sins upon the tree” 394 by “giving himself for us.” 395 His
blood has bought us, his body taken away the curses that were on us —
that is, through the penance of the cross, and through his coming, it has
done away with the sins. (10) Thus the Law was not a curse, never think
it! Neither the Gospel nor the Lord received the curse; but because of his
death, the death decreed for sin is destroyed.

80,1 Next he says that the Law “was the ministration of death.” 396
< But > I have already said a great deal to show that it was not a minister
of death. (2) It did not order murder, but commanded, “Thou shalt do no
murder.” 397 Its ministry was a ministry of death because it murdered the
murderer to prevent murder through the murder of one person, so that
many would be afraid because of the one person, keep their wickedness
in check and commit no more murders. This was not to minister death,

389 Eph 2:2.

390 1 Tim 1:7.

391 Matt 7:22 (Luke 13:26).

392 Luke 13:27.

393 Cf. Deut 21:33.

394 1 Pet 2:24.

395 Gal 1:4.

396 2 Cor 3:7.

397 Exod 20:13.

308

MANICHAEANS

but to ensure the death of the murderer so that many would no longer
become murderers.

80,3 But when the Savior came, since the pedagogue had at last made
his charges peaceable for the greater part of the time, the Savior gave the
more advanced lessons. In agreement with the Law of “Thou shalt do no
murder; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness” 398 (4) the
Savior said, “To him that smiteth thee on the right cheek turn to him the
other also,” 399 in order to make the ministry a ministry of life with mur-
der eliminated altogether. For if someone receives a blow on the cheek,
he offers no provocation to murder. Instead, by his humility he disarms
the murderer’s hand, and soothes the wickedness in him. And thus all the
ancient laws, and the New Testament, are in agreement.

8r,r Then he seizes on something else, as a covert way of introduc-
ing two pieces of evidence for the dyad he speaks of — the dyad of the
natures which I mentioned before, of two principles with no beginnings,
and of two roots. In his desire to say something similar about a distinc-
tion between things, he ventures to distinguish them as follows, and is
not ashamed to say, (2) "The Old Testament said, The silver is mine and
the gold is mine”; 400 but the New Testament says, “Blessed are the poor
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” 401

8r,3 But he does not know that the Old Testament also says, “The poor
and the rich have met together: but the Lord is the maker of them both.” 402
And the New Testament agrees, and pronounces a blessing on the poor
who are literally poor, and in another passage a blessing on the poor in
spirit, so that both pronouncements have force. Thus Peter can point with
pride to his literal poverty and say, “Silver and gold have I none, but what
I have, I give thee; in the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk,” 403 (4) so
that the blessing of the actually poor means nothing contradictory to the
blessing of the poor in spirit. The “poor in spirit” are persons in righteous
possession of property, while the “poor” are the humble, of whom Christ
said, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat, thirsty, and ye gave me
drink,” and so on 404

398 Exod 20:13; 15-16.

399 Matt 5:39.

400 Hag 2:9.

401 Matt 5:3. The argument, and this scriptural text, are found at Act. Arch. 44.8.

402 Prov 22:2.

403 Acts 3:6.

404 Matt 25:35, cf. Act. Arch. 44.9-10.

MANICHAEANS

309

81,5 Next he explains, ‘These (i.e., the poor in spirit) acted of their
abundance”; 405 and you see one and the same Spirit speaking of the poor
and the rich in the Old Testament and the same in the New, just as the
Savior praises them both. (6) For as he was watching the treasury he saw
people putting money into the treasury, and did not refuse the gifts of
the rich; but he praised the widow who had put in the two mites for her
[actual] poverty, as we have said, in fulfillment of the scripture, “The poor
and the rich have met together: but the Lord is the maker of them both.” 406
(81,7) And to show that this is so, and the Spirit of the Old and the New
Testaments is the same, see the apostle say of the ancient prophets, “The
time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and
the other prophets who wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being
tormented, straitened, afflicted, of whom the world was not worthy.” 407
For I have found that Isaiah wore sackcloth, and Elijah too. And do you
see how, in the Old and the New Testaments, the poor are called blessed
for piety, and the rich are called blessed for righteousness?

82.1 Then once more, the same Mani says, “The Old Testament com-
mands us to keep the Sabbath, and if one did not keep it he was stoned,
as one was put < to death > for gathering a bundle of sticks. But the New
Testament, that is, the Lord in the Gospel, said, “I work, and my Father
worketh.’ 408 The disciples plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath, and he
healed on the Sabbath. And not only this, but He said besides, ‘Take up
thy bed, and go unto thine house.” ’ 409

82.2 Such ignorance! There is nothing worse than lack of knowledge,
for ignorance has made many people blind. When has the Sabbath not
been broken for a good cause? When was not only the Sabbath, but every
day not a forbidden day for evil?

82.3 Moses’ successor Joshua the son of Nun, who counts as a prophet,
was God’s chosen, and stopped the sun and moon by prayer when he
said, “Let the sun be still over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of
Ajalon,” 410 plainly broke the Sabbath for the performance of a good work.
(4) When traveling farther than the prescribed six stades was not allowed
on the Sabbath, he circled the walls of Jericho for seven days. But the

405 Mark 12:44; Luke 21:4.

406 Prov 22:2.

407 Heb 11:32; 37.

408 John 5:11.

409 Matt 9:6. Cf. Act. Arch. 44:9-10.

410 Josh 10:12-13.

3io

MANICHAEANS

circumference of Jericho is more than twenty stades; if they circled it for
seven days, the Sabbath surely fell on one of the days. (5) But this was
God’s command, to show his will to work wonders. For there were no
machines or catapults, no battering-rams, no siege engines; the enemy’s
walls sagged and fell solely at the sound of a ram’s horn and the prayer of
a righteous man. (6) For their punishment was due, since the tally of the
Amorites’ sins had been completed.

83,1 The Law was a judge of iniquity and rewarded everyone in accor-
dance with his own works. The Amorites were in sin, had fallen into trans-
gression, and had violated the oath they had sworn. I have already said this
elsewhere, but to repeat it here will do no harm. (2) This is an example of
Mani’s frightfulness which comes to mind: “Some ‘good’ God of the Law!
He spoiled the Egyptians, expelled the Amorites, Girgashites and other
nations, and gave their land to the children of Israel. If he said, ‘Thou shalt
not covet,’ 411 how could he give them other people’s property?”

83,3 The ignoramus did not know that they had taken their own land
back which had been seized from them, and that retribution was exacted
for the pact that was made between them with a true determination and
oath. (4) For when Noah was saved from the flood — and his wife, with his
three sons and their three brides — he alone divided the whole world as
the passage, and nothing foolish or false, states, distributing it by casting
lots in Rhinocorura 412 to his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth.

83,5 For Rhinocorura means Neel, and its inhabitants actually call it
that; but in Hebrew it means “lots,” since Noah cast the lots for his three
sons there. (6) And the allotment from Rhinocorura, Gadiri fell < to Ham >,
including Egypt, the Marean Marsh, Ammon, Libya, Marmaris, Pentapolis,
Macatas, Macronas, Leptis Magna, Syrtis, and Mauritania, out to the so-
called Pillars of Hercules and the interior of Gadiri. (7) These were Ham’s
possessions to the south. But he also owned the land from Rhinocorura
eastwards, Idumaea, Midianitis, Alabastritis, Homeritis, Axiomitis, Bugaea,
and Diba, out to Bactria.

83,8 The same allotment marks off the east for Shem. Roughly, Shem’s
allotment was Palestine, Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, Commagene, Cilicia,
Cappadocia, Galatia, Paphlagonia, Lazia, Iberia, Caspia, and Carduaea, out
to Media in the north, (g) From there this allotment assigns the north

411 Exod 20:17.

412 Rhinocorura comes from LXX Isa 27:12, where it is used to translate Epiphanius,
who is the first to place Noah’s division of the world here, is thinking of the resemblance
between ^tU and iTJfU, “lot.”

MANICHAEANS

311

to Japheth. And in the west <Japheth was allotted > the land between
Europe and Spain, and Britain, < Thrace, Europe, Rhodope > and the
peoples who border on it, the Venetians, Daunians, Iapygians, Calabrians,
Latins, Oscans [and] Megarians, out to the inhabitants of Spain and Gaul,
and the lands of the Scots and Franks in the north.

84,1 When the allotments had been so made Noah called his three
sons together and bound them with an oath, so that none of them would
encroach on his brother’s allotment and be covetous of his brother.
(2) But, being covetous, Canaan the son of Ham invaded Palestine and
held it, and the land was named Canaan because Canaan settled in it after
leaving his own allotment, which he thought was hot. (3) And he settled
in Shem’s land, which is now called Judaea, and fathered the following
sons: Amorraeus, Girgashaeus, Pherizaeus, Jebusaeus, Hivaeus, Arucaeus,
Chittaeus, Asenaeus, Samaraeus, Sidonius and Philistiaeus. (4) And so, to
show that the number of their sins against the oath was reaching comple-
tion, the Lord says in the Law, “The sins of the Amorites have not yet
been completed.” 413 And therefore [Israel] remained in the mountains
and loitered in the wilderness, until the Amorites rendered themselves
self-condemned by going to war with the wronged sons of Shem.

84,5 For Shem was the father of Arphaxad, Arphaxad of Kenah, Kenah
of Selah, Selah of Eber, Eber of Peleg, Peleg of Reu, Reu of Serug, Serug
of Nahor, Nahor of Terah, Terah of Abraham, Abraham of Isaac, Isaac of
Jacob, Jacob of Judah, Judah of Perez, Perez of Esrom, Esrom of Aram,
Aram of Aminadab, Aminadab of Naason. (6) In the time of Naason the
head of the tribe of Judah and in the time Joshua the son of Nun, the
sons of Shem took their own land with no wrong involved, but a putting
to rights. And so the walls of Jericho fell of themselves, for righteousness
avenges unrighteousness. (7) They circled the walls on seven days, and the
Sabbath was violated so that righteousness would be fulfilled.

854 And not only this, but the sacred lampstand in the tent of the tes-
timony had seven lamps, and the seven lamps were all lit every day. Not
one remained unlit on any day; on every day there was the same light.
(2) For the Sabbath was not instituted for the stoppage of work but for
good work. While no one in the twelve tribes ever worked [on the Sab-
bath], the altar alone did not stand idle, as the Lord says in the Gospel,
“Your priests profane the Sabbath in the temple, and are blameless.” 414

413 Gen 15:16.

414 Matt 12:5.

312

MANICHAEANS

(3) But “They profane the Sabbath” means that they break it. But how
do they break it but by offering sacrifice to God, so that the altar will not
stand idle?

85,4 And not only this. The sun rises and sets, the moon waxes and
wanes, winds blow, fruit is produced, mothers give birth, and it all takes
place on the Sabbath. (5) And thus when the Lord came he did not prac-
tice carpentry or coppersmithing on the Sabbath, or < do > anything else
[of the sort], but as God he did the work of God. And he says, “Take up thy
bed and walk,” 415 to make his ongoing work known from the man carrying
the bed, so that all will recognize Him who has come from heaven to the
aid of the sons of men.

85,6 For he did in fact come to abolish the Sabbath, but he could not
have abolished it if it had been other than his own. No one destroys some-
one else’s work unless he is a renter 416 and a nuisance, the kind of person
who asks for punishment. (7) But since the Sabbath belonged to him he
said, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”; and he said, “Man was not
made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.” 417 (8) Now if God made
the Sabbath for man, and valued man more highly than the Sabbath, then
< there is one God, who made the law of the Sabbath* > so that everyone
would be aware of the rest < God has given us [now*] >, and the repose
of the things to come; for the things here are types of the heavenly things.
(9) Here things are partial, but there is all perfection. So the Sabbath of
the Law was in force until Christ’s arrival. But he abolished that Sabbath
and gave us the supreme Sabbath, the Lord himself, our Rest and Sabbath
Repose.

85,10 Thus the Old Testament is no different from the New, or the New
from the Old. However, if an unschooled, ignorant person sees two ladles
draw water from one stream, but supposes because of the difference of
the ladles that the kinds of water [in them] are different too, the wise
will tell him the truth, “Taste the two ladles, and see that there are two
ladles, but one stream.” (11) Thus there is one Lord, one God, one Spirit
who has spoken in the Law and Prophets, and in the Gospel. This is why
there are not two Old Testaments and not two New Testaments. There
are not two testators but one, who makes the Old Testament old and the
New Testament new — not by reducing the Old Testament to nothing but

415 John 5:8.

416 E>oW]^7mop translates the Latin conductor, or susceptor.

417 Mark 2:28; 27.

MANICHAEANS

313

by bringing the Old Testament to a close and adding the inheritance of
abundance through the second Testament

86,1 Mani introduces yet another text by saying, “I know that spirit is
saved without body. 418 For the apostle teaches this,” says he, “with the
words, ‘It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and
such fornication as is not found even among the gentiles, that one should
have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned,
that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already him
that hath done this deed, when ye and the Lord are gathered together
with my spirit, to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 419 (2) But the
destruction of the flesh is its entire reduction to nothing. If the flesh is
reduced to nothing by the devil’s agency, and the spirit is saved, how can
there still be a resurrection of bodies or flesh, and a salvation of spirit?” 420

86,3 And in his total ignorance he did not know that “The works of
the flesh are fornication, adultery, uncleanness” 421 and similar things, and
< that > Paul is not speaking of the flesh itself, but of the works of the flesh.
(4) When fornication is committed, the flesh commits it. But if one prac-
tices continence, the flesh is no longer flesh. The flesh has been turned
to spirit as the apostle says, “He who joined both at the beginning said,
For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” 422 “Thus he which
is joined to an harlot is one body, and he which is joined unto the Lord
is one spirit.” 423

86,5 Thus if someone commits fornication he has become "flesh” — and
not just his flesh itself, but everything about him, his soul and the rest,
becomes “flesh.” He became flesh by his union with the harlot, and since
he is fleshly the whole of him is called flesh. “But he that is joined to the
Lord is one spirit” — that is, his body, his soul and everything in the man,
is one spirit in the Lord.

418 Man. Horn. 75,13-14, “their souls went to the heavens, their bodies returned to the
ground.”

419 1 Cor 5:1-5.

420 Chapter 13 of the Kephalaia, pp. 45,16-46,12, is entitled “On the Five Saviors Who
Raise the Dead, and on the Five Resurrections.” The chapter is fragmentary, but the five
resurrections are surely “spiritual” or metaphorical.

421 Gal 5:19.

422 Eph 2:14; 5:31.

423 1 Cor 6:16-17.

3>4

MANICHAEANS

86.6 And the same apostle says in his legislation on the subject, “God
hath set the members in the body, every one of them as it hath pleased
him.” 424 And see how he acknowledges that God is the maker of the body,
and the Disposer of our members as he has willed, by his wisdom and
goodness.

86.7 Then again, in place of the illustration of our own bodies < he
introduces the illustration of the body* > of Christ, < and says >, “As we
are the body of Christ and members in particular,” 425 and, “the church of
God, which is the body of Christ.” 426 (8) Now if God’s church is a body,

< but > it is one spirit when it is joined to the Spirit, that is, to the Lord,
then a member who sins ceases to be spirit and becomes entirely flesh, in
his soul and body, and everything in him.

86,9 Otherwise, how could part of someone be delivered to Satan, and
part not delivered? Paul did not say that the man’s flesh was delivered to
Satan, but ordered the delivery of “such an one.” But since he says, "such
an one,” (10) he has delivered a man whole, with his soul and entire man-
hood. If he has delivered him whole, however, he has declared that he is
entirely flesh. But he said that “the spirit” is saved at the day of the Lord,
so that the church would not be held responsible for the fault of the man
who fell, and the whole church polluted by the transgression of the one.

< Thus > what he means is, “Deliver the one who has fallen, that the spirit,
that is, the whole church, may be saved.”

87,1 But, says Mani, the scripture says, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God”; 427 and here he thinks he has a point. In fact, how-
ever, fornication cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, nor can adultery,
uncleanness or idolatry; that is, “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the king-
dom of heaven.

87,3 If you suppose, however, that the "flesh and blood” [mentioned
here] is the actual flesh, what application can be left for, “And as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, who
were born, not of the flesh, but of God?” 428 Who in the world has been
born without flesh? (3) But because their minds were changed — not the
natures of those who are born of flesh and blood mothers and fathers,
[but their minds \ — and they were born with the second birth, which is

424 1 Cor 12:18.

425 Read ex pepoui; with 1 Cor 12:27. MSS ex peXoup is surely an error.

426 Eph 1:22-23.

427 1 Cor 15:53.

428 John 1:12-13.

MANICHAEANS

315

birth from the Lord by Spirit and fire, he gave them the right to become
the sons of God.

87,4 Thus, as they were born of flesh and blood here, < so in turn they
are born again of spirit* >. And because of their conversion to righteous-
ness their birth is no longer counted as a birth of flesh and blood, although

< they live* > in flesh and blood — as he says, "For though we walk in the
flesh, we do not war after the flesh.” 429 (5) Thus there can be flesh that
does not “war after the flesh.” And this is why he says that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. He < is not speaking > of this flesh
which has grown weary [in welldoing], been sanctified, pleased God, but
of the “flesh” which is counted as sinful. (6) Otherwise what application
can there be of “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mor-
tal must put on immortality?” 430

87,7 But so that no one will fall into error and despair of the body’s res-
urrection because of its evil works, the same apostle puts this more clearly
and says, "Put to death your members upon earth, which are fornication,
adultery, uncleanness,” 431 and so on. < And see that he means the mem-
bers that do not rise, the passions of the flesh.* > (8) On the other hand,
listen to the angels who appeared to the Galilaeans and said, “This Jesus
whom ye have seen taken up from you, shall so come in like manner as ye
have seen him taken up.” 432

From all that I have said, the sensible can understanding the meaning
in all the words of the truth, and in those of this so-called Mani’s false-
hood. And even if I have overlooked some text, all his lies are detectable
by means of the two or three testimonies which I have mentioned.

We have gone over a long, hard road and many dangerous places, and

< have* > with difficulty < crushed the head* > of this amphisbaena and
venomous reptile, the cenchritis, which has coils of many illustrations for
the deception of those who see it, and conceals beneath it the sting and
poisonous source < of the lies of heathen mythology* >. (3) For since Mani
is a pagan with the pagans and worships the sun and moon, the stars and
daemons, the man < is heathen* >, and his sect teaches heathen religion.

< And besides this* > he knows the lore of the magi and is involved with

429 2 Cor 10:3.

430 1 Cor 15:53.

431 Col 3:5.

432 Cf. Acts 1:11; Man. Ps. 86,19-21, "Thou madest me worship these Luminaries and
the Fathers that are in them, that ferry across them that believe to the Land of the
Immortals.”

3i6

HIERACITES

them, and he praises astrologers and practices their mumbo jumbo. He
merely mouths the name of Christ, as the cenchritis too conceals its poi-
son, and deceives people with its tangled coils by hiding in deep woods
and matching its background.

88,4 But with the power of God, the cudgel of the truth, the blood
of Christ, his body truly born of Mary, the resurrection of the dead, and
the confession of the one Divine Unity, we have crushed the head of the
dragon upon the waters, put this many-headed sect to flight and smashed
its head. Let us close with gratitude to God and hurry on to the other
sects, calling on God to be the help of our weakness, so that we may keep
the promise we have made in God, and give him perfect thanks.

Against Hieracites. 1 47, but 67 of the series

1,1 After the savage onset of this rotten, poisonous teaching of Mani, the
worst of all heresies and like that of a snake, there arose a man named
Hieracas, the founder of the Hieracites. (2) He lived at Leontus in Egypt 2
and had quite a bit of education, for he was proficient in the Greek and
other literary studies, and well acquainted with medicine and the other
subjects of Greek and Egyptian learning, and perhaps he had dabbled in
astrology and magic. (3) For he was very well versed in many subjects and,
as his works show, < an extremely scholarly > expositor of scripture. 3 He
knew Coptic very well — the man was Egyptian — and was also quite clear
in Greek, for he was quick in every way.

1.4 He was supposedly Christian but did not persevere in Christ’s
regime, for he strayed from it, slipped, and came to grief. He could recite
the Old and New Testaments accurately from memory and gave exposi-
tions of them, but because of his foolishness he privately held whatever
doctrines suited his fancy and came into his head.

1.5 Hieracas too holds that the flesh never rises, only the soul. 4 He
claims, however, that there is a spiritual resurrection. And he collected

1 i>3> 3,3, and the quotations from Hieracas at 2,2-64 and 3,2-3 show that Epiphanius
knows a work or works by Hieracas, or has seen quotations from them. The Life of Epipha-
nius, 27, says that Epiphanius had a personal encounter with Hieracas and rebuked him,
but had this been the case, Epiphanius would have said so here. In fact, at 68,1,2 Epipha-
nius dates Hieracas in the time of Diocletian.

2 So at Vit. Epiph. 27.

3 Holl: sv e^v)yt)o , ei< qjiXoxaXuTaTo? >.

4 Vit. Epiph. 27 says “not this flesh, but another in its place.”

HIERACITES

317

whatever texts he could < find > in the sacred scripture to support his
position, and thus heaped them up and wickedly concocted any old cheap
fictions for proof of his heresy. (6) But he was awesome in his asceticism,
and able to win souls to himself; for example, many Egyptian ascetics
were convinced by him. 1 suppose it was because he took the cue for it
from Origen that he denied that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrec-
tion of the flesh — or, spat this up out of his own head.

1,7 He does not countenance matrimony, and claims that this is an
an ordinance of the Old Testament. For he recognizes Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and all the saints alike, Isaiah and Jeremiah too, and
regards them as prophets. (8) He says that the contracting of matrimony is
permitted in the Old Testament, but that since Christ’s coming marriage is
no longer accept< able >, 5 (g) and cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.

For, he asks, what new thing did the Word come to do? What new mes-
sage did the Only-begotten come to give and set right? If it was about the
fear of God, the Law had this. If it was about marriage, the scriptures had
proclaimed it. If it was about envy, covetousness and iniquity, all this is
in the Old Testament. But Christ came to make only this correction — to
preach continence in the world, and choose the pure and the continent
for his own; and without continence no < one > can be saved.

2,1 Hieracas collects the warrants for this from all sorts of places — for
example, when the scriptures say, “and your consecration, without which
no man shall see God.” 6 (2) And if they ask him, “Why did the apostle say,
‘Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adul-
terers God will judge,’ ” 7 < he replies, “But on the other hand the apostle
says, ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman, ’*> 8 (3) and adds immedi-
ately, < ‘It is good for a man so be.’ ” > 9 And skipping a little he says, “ ‘The
unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please
the Lord, likewise the virgin. But she that is married careth how she may
please her husband, and is divided.’ 10 (4) Now if there is division, where
there is division how can there be union? And if the married woman does
not please God but her husband, how can she have her inheritance with

5 At Ps.-Ath. Haer., PG 28, 516C, it is said that Hieracas will not accept the marriage
of Adam and Eve as a precedent for the legitimacy of matrimony because he rejects the
Old Testament.

6 Heh 12:14.

7 Heb 13:4.

8 1 Cor 7:26.

9 1 Cor 7:26.

10 Cf. 1 Cor 7:34.

3i8

HIERACITES

God? (5) < The apostle > doesn’t < say >, ‘To avoid fornication, let every
man have his own wife,’ 11 in order to commend matrimony after the incar-
nation, but in order to bear with it, to prevent falls into further ruin. ‘For
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
of heaven’s sake.’ 12 And Paul says, ‘I will that all men be even as I myself.’ 13
(6) And ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened unto ten virgins, five foolish
and five wise.’ 14 Wise virgins, foolish virgins, are likened to the kingdom
of heaven — but virgins! He didn’t say, ‘married persons.’ ” And he heaps
up a great deal of material of this kind for his supposed abolition of mat-
rimony, if you please.

2.7 Hieracas does not accept children who die before the age of
reason, 15 but excludes them from the hope in which we believe. They can-
not inherit the kingdom of heaven, he says, because they have not taken
part in the contest. “For if a man strive, yet is he not crowned except he
strive lawfully.” 16 If even someone who strives is not crowned unless he
strives lawfully, how much more those who have not yet been summoned
to the arena?

2.8 Again, of course like Origen as I said, he does not believe that Para-
dise is an actual place or that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection
of the flesh. He says that there is a resurrection of the dead but that it is
a resurrection of souls, and makes up some spiritual mythology, (g) And
no one can worship with them without being a virgin, a monk, continent
or a widow.

3,1 But Hieracas does not agree with Origen about the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. 17 He believes that the Son is really begotten of
the Father and, as to the Holy Spirit, < he asserts > that he is the Spirit
of the Father. (2) He, however, as I remarked above in the Sect of the
Melchizedekians, claims that the Holy Spirit is Melchizedek himself 18
because “< the apostle > has said, ‘He rnaketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered.’ 19 And who is this? Who but < ‘he that

11 1 Cor 7:2.

12 Matt 19:12.

13 1 Cor 7:7.

14 Matt 25:1-2.

15 Cf. Vit. Epiph. 27. The Greek here is literally, “before knowledge.”

16 2 Tim 2:5.

17 Cf. Arius Ep. Ad Alexandrum at Pan. 69,7,6.

18 Pan. 55,5,2-4.

19 Rom 8:26.

HIERACITES

319

was made like unto the Son of God, who > remaineth a priest forever?’ But
it says, ‘a priest forever,’ 20 because of the intercession.”

3.3 This Spirit met with Abraham then, since he is like the Son. “And
this,” says ffieracas, "is why the apostle < says >, ‘without father, without
mother, without descent.’ 21 ‘Without mother’ ” he says, “because he has no
mother. ‘Without father’ because he had no father on earth, but is ‘made
like unto the Son of God, and remaineth a priest forever.’ ” And he talked
lots of nonsense about the Holy Spirit, and went to a great deal of trouble
over him.

3.4 He believes he can draw his clinching proof from the Ascension
of Isaiah, supposedly because the so-called Ascension tells us that Isaiah
said, “The angel that walked before me showed me, and he showed me
and said, ‘Who is that on the right hand of God?’ And I said, ‘Sir, thou
knowest.’ He said, ‘This is the Beloved. (5) And who is the other, who is
like him, that hath come from the left?’ And I said, ‘Thou knowest.’ < He
said >, ‘This is the Holy Spirit, that speaketh in thee and in the proph-
ets.’ And,” Isaiah says, “ ‘he was like unto the Beloved.’ ” 22 Hieracas utilizes
this as proof of the scriptural saying, “Made like unto the Son of God, he
remaineth a priest forever.”

3,6 Now how many things, even about this, can my mind think of in
opposition to this phony teaching of his ? (7) He died in old age. He wrote
both in Greek and in Coptic, expositions he had composed < of > the six
days of creation, fabricating some legends and pompous allegories. But
he wrote on any number of other scriptural subjects and composed many
latter-day psalms. (8) And many of those who believe 23 in his doctrines
abstain from meat. Hieracas himself really practiced a great deal of asceti-
cism, but his disciples after him do it hypocritically. He himself abstained
from all sorts of foods, and denied himself wine as well. (9) And some
say of him that, although he lived past ninety, he practiced calligraphy
till the day of his death — he was a calligrapher. For his vision remained
unimpaired.

4,1 All right, let’s investigate this man’s tares too. With which of the
sacred scripture’s ideas should we join ourselves to scotch this poison-
ous snake that strikes front and back like a scorpion? For it heaped up
material from two Testaments to do harm, not as the sacred words are

20 Heb 7:3.

21 Heb 7:3.

22 Asc. Isa. g.33.

23 Holl xwv 7iei0o(ievcov aiixou xot? Soy^aorv, MSS tcov aXv) 0 iva)v auxou xou Soyfxaxof.

320

HIERACITES

but as his false thinking formed obscure notions of things that are clear.
(2) Honey is not nasty or bitter, and neither are the nicer foods God has
created. But if they are given to a fever patient they seem bitter in his
mouth, not because the sweet things have turned bitter, but because the
patient’s taste has imparted bitterness to the things he is given. (3) In the
same way, no one who has fallen away from the truth has been deceived
by the truth; he tasted the truth with bitter thoughts and it has been made
bitter for him.

4,4 But let’s see, what shall we say about the children — the ones who
were killed for Christ at once, in Bethlehem of Judaea? Are such as they
without part in the kingdom of heaven, or do they have a part? They do,
since they are innocent. (5) For if they have no part in it, then the Lord has
become an accessory to their murder, for they were killed for him. But if
they were killed for him and thus had no opportunity to enter the contest
or gain the prize, then the Lord’s advent, which was intended < for salva-
tion >, has become harmful to the world instead. For it has become the
cause of the untimely departure of the babes, since they were punished
and fell victim to the king’s menace, so that they could not enter the con-
test to gain its rewards.

4,6 But let’s look at some other considerations. Call Solomon, the
blessed and the wisest man of all, to confound this Hieracas! Come here,
you most blessed of prophets, who “received of the Lord a profusion of
heart and wisdom, as the sand upon the seashore.” 24 What would you
think of the children? (7) And Solomon replies, “Old age is not honor-
able, nor length of life, nor is the reckoning made by number of years.
Wisdom is an hoary head for men, and a spotless life their old age. For
in his innocence he was loved by God, and from living among sinners he
was translated. He was rapt away, lest wickedness alter his understand-
ing, or guile deceive his soul. For the influence of evil doth weaken things
that are good, and the wandering of desire doth undermine an harm-
less mind.” 25 (8) And because he is speaking of children he adds at once,
“Being perfected in a short time he fulfilled < long years >” 26 — that is to
say, he lived for many years even though he died young. “For his soul was
pleasing unto the Lord, therefore he hasted to remove him from the midst

24 3 Kms 5:9.

25 Wisd Sol 4:8-12.

26 Wisd Sol 4:13.

HIERACITES

321

of wickedness.” 27 (g) And to Jeremiah the Lord says, “Before thou camnest
forth from the womb I sanctified thee.” 28

5.1 But let’s look at the Savior himself, the mouth that cannot lie, the
one that knows all things. Come here, Lord, and lend your aid to our
minds, but confound Hieracas and his rashness! (2) Scripture says, “There
came unto him little children, that he might put his hands on them and
bless them. But the disciples thrust them away and forbade them. But he
said unto them, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come
unto me. For of such is the kingdom of God. 29 (3) And lest it be thought
that the kingdom of heaven is composed solely of children and < seems* >
not to < extend to* > all ages, he begins with the children, but has granted
those who are like them to possess the inheritance with them. (4) For if
those who are like them can reign, how much more the models for those
who are like them? And Hieracas’ fairy story has fallen flat.

5,5 For the Lord is merciful to all. “The Lord keepeth guard over the
little ones,” 30 and, “Praise the Lord, ye children.” 31 And the children cried
out, “Hosannah in the highest, blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord.” 32 And, “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou
perfected praise.” 33 And there are any number of other texts like them.

6.1 But as to the resurrection of the flesh, Hieracas you would-be sage,
how can there not be a resurrection of flesh? The term itself shows the
meaning of the expression. We cannot speak of the “rising” of something
that has not fallen. (2) But what is it that fell? What was buried? What
was destroyed but the body, and not the soul? A soul neither falls nor is
buried. And how much is there to be said about this? We cannot speak of
the resurrection of a soul; it is the body that is raised.

6,3 And as to the selection the Savior came to make of virgins, the con-
tinent, and the pure — to whom is it not plain that there is an election, and
that < virginity* > is the pride of the holy catholic and apostolic church?
< But the Savior accepts* > persons who are in lawful wedlock as well; for
he is out to save “every man in his own order.” 34 (4) How can “marriage”

27 Wisd Sol 4:14.

28 Jer 1:5.

29 Matt 19:13-14.

30 Ps 114:6.

31 Ps 112:1.

32 Matt 21:9.

33 Ps 8:3.

34 1 Cor 15:23.

322

HIERACITES

not be “honorable” 35 and possess the kingdom of heaven in God, when
the Savior was invited to a wedding for the purpose of blessing marriage?
If he had refused to go to a wedding he would have been a destroyer
of matrimony, and not the One who accepts each one, from pity for his
weakness. Marriage is honorable, then, for he himself has so designated it.
(5) This is why he went to a wedding — to stop the mouths of those who
speak against the truth.

For Jesus performed a first miracle there in Cana of Galilee, by turning
the water into wine. (6) As he had dawned from a virgin to show the light
that dawned from the virgin to the world, so he performed his first miracle
at a wedding in Cana of Galilee — to honor virginity by his conception and
the ray of light that dawned through it, but to honor lawful wedlock by
his miracles for he performed his first at a wedding, changing the water
to unmixed wine.

6,7 Similarly, if marriage was wrong why does the teacher of the gen-
tiles command it, as he says, “Younger widows refuse. For after they wax
wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they
have cast off their first faith.” 36 (8) What does he say then? “But let them
marry, bear children, guide the house.” 37 If Paul allows these things, how
can you, Hieracas, teach that marriage is to be rejected after Christ’s
incarnation?

7.1 And as to your assertion that Melchizedek himself is the Spirit — in
that case, the Spirit came and took flesh. It cannot, then, be just the Only-
begotten who has been born in the flesh; the Spirit must have been too.
But if the Spirit was born in the flesh — well, it was Mary who bore the
Savior. Hieracas should say where the mother is who bore the Spirit.

7.2 And in saying, “Made like unto the Son of God he remaineth a
priest forever,” 38 the scripture cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit. (3) It
didn’t say, "like the Son of God,” but, “made like.” Now “made like” refers
to something that came to be at a later date. But if the Spirit is “made
like” Christ after the time of Abraham, there was a time when there was
no Spirit, and this is why he was “made like” the Son of God.

And how can he be “without father?” (4) If the Spirit is self-existent and
not of the Godhead’s own essence, it can fairly be shown that he is “without
father.” And indeed, the Son is only-begotten and has no brother, but is the

35 Heb 3:4.

36 1 Tim 5:11.

37 1 Tim 5:14.

38 Heb 7:3.

HIERACITES

323

Son of God. (5) But even if we say that the Spirit is not begotten, since
the Son is on/y-begotten, Christ still says that the Spirit “proceeded” from
the Father” and “receiveth of the Son.” 39 Hence the Spirit who “proceedeth
from the Father” and "receiveth of me,” cannot be “without father.”

7,6 Even if he means “ ‘without mother’ in heaven and ‘without father’
on earth” — for this can also be said of the Savior — why does the apostle
explain this at the end by saying, “He whose descent is not counted from
them received tithes of the patriarch Abraham?” 40 (7) [The phrase], “from
them” is indicative of precise expression; for since his descent was not
counted from the children of Israel he must surely have been descended
from other nations. But because his father and mother are not recorded
in the scriptures, those who misrepresent the truth imagine one thing in
place of another. (8) I, though, have found both his mother and his father
in traditions; he was descended from the Sidonians and the Canaanites.
Thus his fairy story has crumbled. And his ascetic practice is of no avail;
to settle for lifeless things coupled with wrong belief is no school of life
and the hope of salvation. Scripture says, “Let all things be done to the
glory of God.” 41

8,1 But here too, I believe enough has been said about them. We have
broken the scorpion’s wings and pulled its powers down. For Hieracas is a
winged snake and scorpion which has wings of many kinds, and flies, and
mimics the church’s virginity but without a clear conscience. (2) For he
and people like him are instances of “Having their conscience seared with
an hot iron; and forbidding to marry, and to abstain from meats which
God hath made to be received. For they are sanctified by the word of
the living God and prayer, since all things are good and wholesome, and
nothing is abominable with God.” 42

8,3 However, they are a complete laughing-stock because of the adop-
tive wives each of them has acquired, whom they are at pains to have for
domestic service. (4) But as I said, we have pulled his wings off too, and
broken his head with the wood of life, the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us go on to the rest, calling on God himself to aid us, so that we may
reply to the remaining sects, and refute the heresies they palm vainly off
on the world.

39 John 15:26; 16:15.

40 Heb 7:6.

41 1 Cor 10:31.

42 Cf. 1 Tim 4:2-4.

324

MELITLANS

< Against > the Schism ofMelitius the Egyptian. 1

48, but 68 of the series

1,1 There is a party of Melitians in Egypt whose founder was Melitius, a
bishop in the Thebaid. He belonged to the catholic church and was of
the orthodox faith, for his faith did not vary in any way from that of the
holy catholic church. (2) Melitius was a contemporary of Hieracas, flour-
ished at the same time as he, and became his successor. He was also a
contemporary of St. Peter the bishop of Alexandria. (3) And all of these
lived during the persecution in the reigns of Diocletian and Maximian.
The affair of Melitius took place as follows.

1.4 He instigated a schism, but in no sense by an alteration of the faith.
He was arrested during the persecution, with the holy bishop and martyr,
Peter, and the other martyrs, by the officials the emperor had assigned to
the task, the governors of Alexandria and Egypt at the time. (Culcianus
was prefect of the Thebaid, and Hierocles, prefect of Alexandria.) 2

1.5 Melitius too was confined in the prison, he and the martyrs we
spoke of, with Peter the archbishop of Alexandria. Indeed, Melitius him-
self was held to be the first < of the bishops* > 3 in Egypt, (6) and second
to Peter in the archiepiscopate, in order to assist him; but he was under
him and referred ecclesiastical matters to him. (7) For it is the custom
for the archbishop in Alexandria to have the ecclesiastical administration
of all Egypt and the Thebaid, Mareotis, Libya, Ammon, Marmarica and
Pentapolis.

1,8 Now all these had been arrested and were in prison awaiting mar-
tyrdom, and had remained in confinement for some time. Others, who
had been condemned before them, were martyred, received their reward,
and fell asleep; but these, as eminent and more important prisoners, were
being kept for later. (2,1) And since some had been martyred, but oth-
ers had missed martyrdom and committed the enormity of idol worship,
those who had even been forced to partake of sacrifices since they had
fallen away, and had offered sacrifice and committed the transgression,

1 Some of Epiphanius' information comes from Athanasius' Apologia Secunda, but
Epiphanius has other sources, including oral ones (cf. 3,1; 8). He is far more sympathetic to
Melitius than was Athanasius. His account of Arius’ death might be based on Athanasius'
Ad Serapionem, De Morte Arii.

2 In fact Culcianus seems to have been the Prefect of Egypt, and Hierocles his suc-
cessor. See Holl ad loc.

3 Or, “was regarded as < responsible for* > affairs in Egypt and < foremost* > in rank,”
Amidon's rendering of Hall’s alternative emendation.

MELITIANS

325

approached the confessors and martyrs to obtain the mercy of penance.
Some were soldiers, but others were clergy of various ranks, the presbyter-
ate, the diaconate and others.

2,2 There was a disturbance over this among the martyrs and no little
trouble. For some said that persons who had once fallen away, denied
the faith, and failed to maintain their courage or take part in the contest,
should not be allowed penance. Otherwise the ones who were still left
would have less regard for the penalty, and would be misled because of
the forgiveness so speedily accorded the others, and come to the denial
of God and the enormity of paganism. And the thing that was said by the
confessors themselves was reasonable. (3) Those who said this were Meli-
tius and Peleus, and more of the other martyrs and confessors with them.
And since they had shown their zeal for God they obviously convinced

< many > 4 by saying it.

2.4 They also went on to say, “If penance should be granted them after
some time when the persecution is over, when peace has been restored —
provided that they truly repent and show the fruit of repentance — it cer-
tainly should not mean that each be taken back in his own order. They
may be received into the church and its communion after an interval,

< but > into the order < of laity >, not as clergy.” And this showed respect
for the truth and was full of zeal.

3.1 But the most holy Peter, a kindly man and like a father to all, begged
and pleaded, “Let us receive them and set them a penance if they repent,
so that they will hold by the church, and let us not turn them out of their
offices either” — or so I have been told. “Otherwise they < will be > dis-
graced, and those who, from cowardice and weakness, were once shaken
and undermined by the devil, may be perverted entirely because of the
delay, and not healed [at all]. As the scripture says, ‘Let that which is lame
not be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.’ ” 5

3.2 And Peter’s argument was on the side of mercy and kindness, and
that of Melitius and his supporters on the side of truth and zeal. Then and
there the schism started up, in the form of the seemingly godly proposals
of both parties; 6 with some saying one thing, some the other.

3.3 For when Peter the archbishop saw that Melitius’ party withstood
his kindliness and were carried to extremes by their zeal for God, he

4 Holl E7TE10EV < 710^.01$ >, MSS ETZOUT/OV.

5 Heb. 12:13.

6 Athanasius, in contrast, says that Peter deposed Melitius for cause at a council, and
that Melitius retaliated by starting the schism, Ath. Ap. Sec. 59.1.

326

MELITLANS

himself hung a curtain in the middle of the prison by spreading out an
himation — that is, a cloak or pallium — and proclaimed < through > a dea-
con, “Let those who are of my opinion come here to me; and let those who
are of Melitius’, to Melitius.”

3.4 And the majority of bishops, presbyters and the other orders sided
with Melitius; but a very few, bishops and a few others, < went > with Peter
the archbishop. And after that the one group prayed by itself and the other
by itself, and in the same way each held its other services separately.

3.5 Peter’s martyrdom came and the blessed man was perfected, leav-
ing Alexander as his successor in Alexandria. For he succeeded to the
throne after Peter. (6) But Melitius and many others were sentenced to
exile, and banished to the mines at Phaeno.

At that time those who were dragged off because of being confessors
< went into schism* > with Melitius. Melitius himself, in prison < and > on
his journey as he passed through every country and area, ordained clergy —
bishops, presbyters and deacons — and founded his own churches. And
the first group would not communicate with the second, nor the second
with the first. (7) But each put a sign on its own church. Those who held
the existing, old churches in succession from Peter, labeled theirs, “Catho-
lic Church”; Melitius’ succession labeled theirs, “Church of the Martyrs.”
(8) And so Melitius ordained many clergy in this way at Eleutheropolis,
Gaza and Aelia, on his arrival.

3,9 Melitius served further time in the mines. Afterwards, however, the
confessors were released from the mines, those of Peter’s party — for there
were still many — and those of Melitius’. For they did not communicate or
pray with each other even in the mines.

But it was given Melitius to live in the world for a while longer, so that
he flourished at the same time as Peter’s successor, Alexander, and was on
good terms < with him >. And he was anxious over the state of the church
and the faith; for 1 have frequently said that he held no divergent beliefs.

4,1 For after he had come to Alexandria and spent some time there,
holding his own assemblies with his own people, Melitius himself detected
Arius. And as it was rumored that Arius, in his expositions, had gone
beyond the prescribed bounds of the faith, he brought him to Alexander.
(2) Arius was a presbyter at the church in Alexandria which is called Bau-
calis. There was one presbyter assigned to a church — for there were many
churches, but now there are more — and the church was entrusted to him,
even if there was another presbyter with him. When 1 need to 1 shall speak
of these things in detail, at the proper place.

MELITIANS

327

Since Alexander had zealously detected Arius, he summoned bishops,
< called > a council and examined him, inquiring about his faith and
demanding < an accounting > from Arius for the corruption of the heresy
which had infected him. (3) And Arius denied nothing but indeed, bra-
zenly replied that it was so. And Alexander excommunicated him, and
with him there were excommunicated a large number, the virgins and
other clergy who had been polluted by him.

4,4 Arius fled and made his way to Palestine. But when he reached
Nicomedia and from there wrote letters to Alexander, he did not abandon
the insane spirit of his heresy. (5) A little later, however, when Alexander,
the holy bishop in Alexandria, had taken pains to arouse the blessed Con-
stantine, Constantine called a council in the city of Nicaea.

4,6 And Arius’ sect was anathematized. < But > after < Alexander died,
Arius wished to be received back into the church* >. For he first denied
his heresy before the blessed emperor Constantine, and pretendedly pro-
fessed the orthodox formularies under oath. (7) But the emperor said to
him, “If you are swearing with full sincerity, may your oath be confirmed,
and you guiltless. But if you are swearing guilefully, may < God >, by whom
you have sworn, take the vengeance on you!” 7 And this happened to him
not long afterwards, as I shall say later.

4,8 In connivance with Eusebius the bishop of Nicomedia, who
held the same beliefs as he, Arius was presented to the same emperor
as having supposedly denied and condemned his heresy. And so
Constantine directed and permitted Eusebius to receive Arius into the
church at Constantinople in the presence of the bishop Alexander, who
had the same name as the bishop of Alexandria but was the bishop of
Constantinople.

5,1 But now, after the death of the confessor Melitius, Alexander of
blessed memory, of Alexandria, renewed his anger against the schism in
the church, and decided to offer every kind of harassment and hindrance
to those who assembled by themselves and whom Melitius had left behind
him, and forcibly prevent them from rebelling against the one church. But
they were unwilling and caused trouble and disturbances. (2) And then,
because of their oppression and restraint by the blessed Alexander, certain
of them, who were the foremost and preeminent for their piety and life,
undertook the journey to court with a petition, to request the privilege of

7 Ath. Ep. Ad Serap. De Morte Arii, PG 25, 688A.

328

MELITLANS

assembling by themselves without hindrance. (3) Those who did so were
an important man named Paphnutius, an anchorite who was himself the
son of a female confessor < and > had nearly been a confessor himself on
a number of occasions; one of their bishops, John, also a highly respected
man; and the bishop in Pelusium, Callinicus; 8 and certain others. (4) But
when they went with their petition for the emperor, they were turned
away and rebuffed. (5) For when the court officials heard the name, “Meli-
tians,” and did not know what that might be, they would not let them
petition the emperor.

6,1 During this affair Paphnutius, John and < the > others had occa-
sion to spend some time in Constantinople and Nicomedia. They became
friends at this time with the bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius, told him
their story — they knew he had access to the emperor Constantine — and
asked for his introduction to the emperor. (2) But after promising to pres-
ent them to the emperor and do what they asked, he made this request
of them — that they receive Arius, who was falsely feigning repentance, 9
into communion with them. (3) They promised him, and then Eusebius
brought them to the emperor and explained their situation to him; and
the emperor granted the Melitians permission to assemble by themselves
from then on, without disturbance from anyone.

6,4 If only these Melitians, who had received the absolutely correct
form of the truth, had communicated with the lapsees after penance
instead of with Arius and his followers! (5) Theirs has been the proverbial
fate of fleeing the smoke to fall into the fire. Arius could not have gained
a foothold and voice except through this business, which has become an
evil alliance for them even now. For the Melitians, who were once simon
pure and absolutely correct in their faith, have gotten mixed in among
the disciples of Arius. (6) And by now most of them have been defiled
by Arius’ heresy, and been turned away from the faith in our time. Even
though some have continued to hold the true faith, they hold it, but,
because of their communion with Arius and the Arians, are by no means
out of the slimy muck.

6,7 But a little later — for as I promised to tell the whole business, I
shall repeat it here — Alexander the bishop of Constantinople was com-
pelled to receive Arius, although he prayed, groaned, and knelt before the

8 John and Callinicus are numbers 25 and 34 in the list of Melitian bishops which
Melitius is said to have furnished Alexander, Ath. Apol. Sec. 71.6.

9 At Apol. Sec. 59.4 Athanasius claims that Eusebius took the initiative in courting
the Melitians.

MELITIANS

329

altar about the ninth hour of the Sabbath. And Eusebius said, “If you won’t
receive him willingly yourself he’ll enter the church with me against your
will tomorrow” — and the Lord’s Day was dawning. (8) But as I said, after
Alexander had prayed and besought our Lord either to take him away
so that he would not be defiled with the blasphemer of the Lord, Arius,
or else to work a wonder, as he does in every generation, the holy man’s
prayer was answered with small delay, (g) That night Arius went to the
privy to relieve himself, and, like Judas once, burst. And thus his end came
in a foul, unclean place.

7,1 Then, after this, their plots against the church were hatched by
Arius’ disciples. Alexander of Alexandria died after the council in Nicaea.
(2) But Athanasius was not there (i.e., in Alexandria) after Alexander’s
death; he was a deacon under Alexander at that time, and had been sent
to court by him. 10 (3) Although Alexander had given orders that no one
but Athanasius be consecrated bishop — as he himself, and the clergy tes-
tified, and the whole church — the Melitians seized the opportunity and,
since there was no bishop in Alexandria (Alexandria has never had two
bishops, like the other cities) they consecrated a man named Theonas
as bishop of Egypt in Alexander’s place. And three months later he died.
(4) Not long after Theonas’ death, Athanasius arrived. And a council of
orthodox bishops was summoned from all quarters. And thus Athanasius’
consecration took place and the throne was given to him, the man who
was worthy of it and for whom it had been prepared, in accordance with
God’s will and the testimony and command of < the > blessed Alexander.

7,5 And then Athanasius began to be distressed and saddened by the
church’s division, between the Melitians and the catholic church. He
pleaded with them, exhorted them, and they would not listen; he pressed
and urged them < and they would not obey* >.

Now Athanasius often visited the churches nearby, particularly the
ones in Mareotis. (6) And once when the Melitians were holding a service
a deacon, together with some laity, came rushing out of the crowd that
was with Alexander and broke a lamp — as the story goes — and a fight
broke out. * 11 (7) This was the beginning of the intrigue against Athanasius,
for the Melitians brought charges and false accusations against him, and
misrepresented the facts, with the Arians lending their assistance to thse
plot because of their envy of God’s holy faith, and of orthodoxy. (8) And

10 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 6.1-2.

11 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 63.2-4.

33 °

MELITLANS

they communicated with the emperor Constantine. But Eusebius, who, as
I said, was the bishop of Nicomedia, was flunky to their whole gang, and
the one who plotted the injury to the church and Pope Athanasius.

So the accusers went to the emperor and said that the implement
which some, as I told you, said was a torch, was a vessel for the mysteries.
(9) And they made certain other accusations. They claimed that a presby-
ter in Mareotis named Arsenius had been struck, and that his hand had
been cut off with a sword, either by Athanasius’ people or by Athanasius
himself. 12 They even brought a hand to court and displayed it — it was in
a box. 13

8,1 On hearing this, the emperor grew angry. The blessed Constantine
had a zeal for God; he had no idea that they were false accusers because
of the Arians’ anger against orthodoxy, which we have mentioned. And he
commanded that a council be convened in Phoenicia, in the city of Tyre. 14
(2) He ordered Eusebius of Caesarea and certain others to sit as judges; if
anything, however, they had a certain leaning towards the Arians’ vulgar
rant. And bishops of the Catholic church of Egypt were summoned, who
< were > under Athanasius — eminent, distinguished men with illustrious
lives in God. Among them was the blessed Potamon the Great, the bishop
of Hieracleopolis and a confessor. And the Melitians were summoned as
well, especially Athanasius’ accusers.

8,3 The blessed Potamon was a zealot for truth and orthodoxy, a free-
spoken man who had never shown partiality. His eye had been put out
for the truth during the persecution. When he saw Eusebius sitting on the
judge’s bench and Athanasius standing, he was overcome with grief and
wept, as honest men will, and shouted at Eusebius, (4) "Are you seated,
Eusebius, with Athanasius before you in the dock, when he’s innocent?
Who can put up with things like that? Tell me — weren’t you in prison
with me during the persecution? I lost an eye for the truth, but you don’t
appear to be maimed and weren’t martyred; you stand here alive without
a mark on you. How did you get out of jail, if you didn’t promise our per-
secutors to do the unthinkable — or if you didn’t do it?” 15

8,5 On hearing this Eusebius was roused to indignation. He arose and
dismissed the court, saying, “If you’ve come here and answer me like that,

12 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 65.2 — 5.

13 Cf. Theodoret H. E. 1.30; Soc. 1.29.6; Soz. 2.25.10; Rufinus 10.16.

14 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 71.2 — 79.4; Eus. Vit. Const. 4.41-45.3; Socr 1.28-33; Soz. 2.25.10; Rufi-
nus 10.16; Theodoret H. E. 1.28.4; Philostorgius 2.11.

15 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 72.4.

MELITIANS

331

your accusers are telling the truth. If you’re playing the tyrant here, you’d
much better go on home.”

9.1 Then Eusebius and his fellow judges undertook to send two Pan-
nonian bishops with Arian views, Ursaces and Valens, to Alexandria and
Mareotis, where they said these things had happened — the affair of the
vessel and the other circumstances of the fight. 16 (2) But although they
went they did not bring back anything true but made up one perjury 17
after another, and brought false charges against the blessed Pope Atha-
nasius. (3) And, fabricating them in writing as truth, they took them and
referred them to the council of Eusebius and the others. Ursacius and
Valens revealed this later by repenting, approaching the blessed Julius,
the bishop of Rome, with a petition, and saying in admission of their fault,
“We have accused Pope Athanasius falsely; but receive us into commu-
nion and penance.” 18

(4) And they sent their confirmations of this, writen in repentance, to
Athanasius himself. 19 At Tyre Pope Athanasius, seeing that the plot he was
faced with was in all respects a serious one, fled by night before his trial
and confrontation with the false charges, came to Constantine at court,
and gave him his side of the story with an explanation. 20

(5) Constantine was still aggrieved, however, and remained angry
because he thought that the accusers might well be telling the truth and
the accused offering a false defense. But in spite of his anger Pope Athana-
sius sternly told the emperor, “God will judge between you and me, just as
surely as you are in agreement with the traducers of my poor self.” (6) And
then he was condemned to exile because of what the council had written
the emperor — (for they deposed Athanasius in absentia ) — and because of
which the emperor was displeased, being angry with Athanasius. And he
lived in Italy for more than twelve or fourteen years.

10.1 Later it was widely reported that Arsenius, whom the traducers
had originally reported as dead and whose hand was said to be cut off,
had been found in Arabia, and that Arsenius had actually made him-
self known to Athanasius in exile. 21 And Pope Athanasius sent for him
secretly, as I have been told; and when Arsenius had come in person to

16 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 72.4.

17 Holl 7rap£U7<p£povT£<;, MSS TTapoiXCopyjowrEp.

18 Cf. their letters to Julius and Athanasius at Ath. Ap. Sec. 58.1-6.

19 Ath. Ap. Sec. 9.2.

20 Ath. Ap. Sec. 9.2.

21 Ath. Ap. Sec. 8.4-5; 7 2 - 2 -

332

MELITLANS

the blessed Athanasius himself, < they came > together to Constantine’s
sons, Constans and Constantius, Athanasius exhibited Arsenius alive and
with two hands, and it became clear that his accusers were guilty not only
of slander but of grave-robbing, because of the dead hand they used to
carry around. 22 (2) And this made the whole thing ridiculous, and there
was astonishment at such fabrication and so much of it, and no one had
any idea of what to say of the accusers, the accused, and all the other
things — which will take a great deal of time < if I choose > to tell even
part of them.

10,3 But Constantine died, and Pope Athanasius < had become > very
much at home, esteemed and welcome < at > Rome and all over Italy, and
with the emperor himself and his sons, Constans and Constantius. After
the death of Constantine the Great he was sent < to Alexandria* > by the
two emperors, although Constantius was at Antioch and gave his con-
sent < through > his representatives and by a letter < to Alexandria* >, as
I know from the three emperors’ < letters* > to the Alexandrians, and to
Pope Athanasius himself. 23 (4) And once again he occupied his throne
after his successor Gregory, < who > had been sent by the Arians while
Athanasius was in exile.

11,1 But he was again intrigued against, to Constantius by Stephen,
and expelled. And after that he was intrigued against once more, by the
eunuch Leontius and his supporters. He incurred banishment then, and
another recall. For George was sent [to Alexandria] by Constantius, and
Athanasius withdrew and went into hiding for a while, 24 until George
was killed, at which time Julian came to the throne and after Constan-
tius’ death reverted to Hellenism. (2) For the Alexandrians had nourished
anger at George and they killed him, burned his body, reduced it to ashes,
and scattered it to the winds. (3) But after Julian had died in Persia and
the blessed Jovian had succeeded to the empire, he wrote to the bishop
Athanasius with great honor and a memorable letter; and he sent for him,
embraced him, and sent him to his own throne, and the holy church had
received its bishop back and was comforted for a short while.

After Jovian’s death the blessed Athanasius was once more assailed by
the same persecutions, defamations and disturbances. (4) He was not,
indeed, driven from the church and his throne; the Alexandrians had

22 Cf. Ath. Ap. Sec. 64.1-69.4.

23 Cf. Ath. Hist. Ar. 8.1-2; Ap. Sec. 64.1-69.4.

24 Cf. Ath. Ap. De Fuga 2-3.

ARLANS

333

sent an embassy on his behalf, and the entire city had demanded him
after Lucius, < who is > bishop now, had been consecrated abroad as the
Arian < bishop of Alexandria >. It is likely that at Antioch, and a num-
ber of times, he had urged the emperor Valens that he be sent to the
throne [of Alexandria], <but that the emperor* >, who was unwilling to
expel Athanasius for fear of a disturbance among the people, < had not
heeded him* >. (5) Indeed, Lucius was finally sent when Pope Athanasius
died, and did much harm to church and city — to the laity, bishops and
clergy who had been under Athanasius and had received him in every
church, and to Peter, who had been consecrated as Athanasius’ successor
in Alexandria.

11,6 This is still the situation. Some have been exiled — bishops, presby-
ters and deacons — others have been subjected to capital punishment in
Alexandria, and others sent to the arena; and virgins have been killed, and
many others are perishing. (7) God’s church is still in this plight because
of the affair of the Melitians and Arians, who have used means of this sort
to gain their foothold, and < the opportunity > for the same heretical gang,
I mean the gang of Arians, to win out. (8) I shall discuss all this in detail
in my refutation of Arius.

But I shall pass this subject by as well and go on to the Arian sect itself,
calling on God for aid as I approach this fearful, many-headed serpent to
battle with it.

Against the Arian Nuts 1 49, but 69 of the series

1,1 Arius and the Arians who derive from him came directly after this
time of Melitius and St. Peter the bishop of Alexandria. Arius flourished
during the episcopate of Peter’s successor, the holy bishop Alexander,
who deposed him amid much turmoil and with a great council. For Alex-
ander removed him from office and expelled him from the church and
the city, as a great evil which had come to the world. (2) They say that
Arius was Libyan, but that he had become a presbyter in Alexandria. He

1 The literary sources of this Sect include Arius’ letters to Eusebius of Nicomedia
(6,1-7) and Alexander of Alexandria (7, 1-8, 5); the beginning of Constantine’s dubious
Encyclical against Arius (cf. Ath. Nic. 40.1-2); Athanasius’ Apologia Secunda and Epistula
Ad Serapionem De Morte Arii. There may be some debt to Athanasius’ Orationes Contra
Arium. If there is another literary source it is probably an Arian tract or some compendium
of Arian proof texts. The bulk of Epiphanius' refutation of Arianism clearly bears the marks
of his own style and thought.

334

ARLANS

presided over the church called the Church of Baucalis. All the catholic
churches in Alexandria < are > under one archbishop, and presbyters have
been assigned to each particular church to meet the ecclesiastical needs
of the residents whose < homes are* > near each church. These are also
called quarters and lanes by the inhabitants of Alexandria.

1,3 Arius was born during the reign of the great and blessed emperor
Constantine, the son of Constantius in his old age. Constantius was the
son of the emperor Valerian, < who > himself had ruled jointly with
Diocletian, Maximian and the others. (4) Everyone knows that Constan-
tine, the father of Constantius, Constans and Crispus, was admirable in
the practice of Christianity and the apostolic and prophetic faith of the
fathers, which had not been adulterated in the holy churches until the
time of Arius himself. But Arius managed to detach a large number [from
the church.]

2.1 A spirit of Satan, as scripture says, entered this Arius who was
Alexander’s presbyter, and incited him to stir up the dust against the
church — < just as > no small fire was lit from him, and it caught on nearly
the whole Roman realm, especially the east. Even today his sect has not
stopped battling against the true faith.

2.2 But at that time Arius was to all appearances a presbyter, and
there were many fellow presbyters of his in each church. (There are many
churches in Alexandria, including the recently built Caesarium, as it is
called, which was originally the Adrianum and later became the Licinian
gymnasium or palace. (3) But later, in Constantius’ time, it was decided
to rebuild it as a church. Gregory the son of Melitian, and Arian, began
it, and the blessed Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy, finished it. It was
burned in Julian’s time, and rebuilt by the blessed bishop Athanasius him-
self. (4) But as I said there are many others, the one called the Church of
Dionysius, and those of Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Persaea, Dizya, Men-
didius, Ammianus, and the church Baucalis and others.)

2,5 A presbyter named Colluthus served in one of these, Carpones in
another, Sarmatas in another, and the aforesaid Arius, who was in charge
of one of these churches. (6) It is plain that each of these caused some dis-
cord among the laity by his expositions, when, at the regular services, he
taught the people entrusted to his care. Some were inclined to Arius, but
others to Colluthus, others to Carpones, others to Sarmatas. Since each of
them expounded the scripture differently in his own church, from their
preference and high regard for their own presbyter some people called
themselves Colluthians, and others called themselves Arians. (7) And in

ARLANS

335

fact Colluthus < too > taught some perversions, but his sect did not survive
and was scattered immediately. And if only this were also true of Arius’
insane faith, or better, unfaith — or better, wicked faith!

3,1 For in his later years he was inspired by vanity to depart from the
prescribed path. He was unusually tall, wore a downcast expression and
was got up like a guileful serpent, able to steal every innocent heart by his
villainous outer show. For he always wore a short cloak and a dalmatic 2
was pleasant in his speech, and was constantly winning souls round by
flattery. (2) For example, what did he do but lure all of seventy virgins
away from the church at one time! And the word is that he drew seven
presbyters away, and twelve deacons. 3 And his plague immediately spread
to bishops, for he convinced Secundus of Pentapolis and others to be car-
ried away with him. (3) But all this went on in the church without the
knowledge of the blessed Alexander, the bishop, until Melitius, the bishop
of Egypt from the Thebaid whom I mentioned, who was regarded as an
archbishop himself — the affair of Melitius had not yet reached the point
of wicked enmity. (4) Moved by zeal, then — he did not differ in faith,
only in his show of would-be righteousness, < because of > which he did
the world great harm himself, as I have explained. Well then, Melitius, the
archbishop in Egypt but supposed to be under Alexander’s jurisdiction,
brought this to the attention of the archbishop Alexander. As I have said,
Melitius was contemporary with the blessed bishop and martyr Peter.

3,5 When Melitius had given all this information about Arius — how
he had departed from the truth, had defiled and ruined many, and had
gradually weaned his converts away from the right faith — the bishop sent
for Arius himself and asked whether what he had been told about him was
true. (6) Arius showed neither hesitancy nor fear but brazenly coughed
his whole heresy up from the first — as his letters show and the inves-
tigation of him at the time. (7) And so Alexander called the presbytery
together, and certain other bishops who were there [at the time], and held
an examination and interrogation of Arius. But since he would not obey
the truth Alexander expelled him and declared him outcast in the city.
But the virgins we spoke of were drawn away from the faith with him, and
the clergy we mentioned, and a great throng of others.

2 Both of these garments were sometimes worn by monks.

3 Cf. Soc. 1.6.8; Soz. 1.15.7; Gel- 2.3.6; Theod. 1.4.61.

336

ARLANS

4.1 But though Arius stayed in the city for a long time, the confes-
sor and martyr Melitius immediately died. Arius, then, destroyed many
by instigating schisms and leading everyone astray. Later though, since
he had been discovered and exposed in the city and excommunicated,
he fled from Alexandria and made < his > way to Palestine. (2) And on
his arrival he approached each bishop with fawning and flattery in the
hope of gaining many supporters. And some received him, while others
rebuffed him.

4,3 Afterwards this came to the ears of the bishop Alexander, and
he wrote encyclical letters to each bishop which are still preserved by
the scholarly, about seventy in all. He wrote at once to Eusebius in Cae-
sarea — he was alive — and to Macarius of Jerusalem, Asclepius in Gaza,
Longinus in Ascalon, Macrinus in Jamnia, and others; and in Phoenicia
to Zeno, a senior bishop in Tyre, and others, along with < the bishops >
in Coele Syria. (4) When the letters had been sent reproving those who
had received Arius, each bishop replied to the blessed Alexander with
his explanation. (5) And some wrote deceitfully, others truthfully, some
explaining that they had not received him, others, that they had received
him in ignorance, and others that they had done it to win him by hospital-
ity. And this is a long story.

5.1 Later, when Arius found that letters had been sent to the bishops
everywhere, and that afterwards he was turned away from every door
and none but his sympathizers would take him in any more — (2) (for the
elderly senior bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius, was a sympathizer of his 4
together with Lucius, his colleague in Nicomedia. And so was Leontius, the
eunuch in Antioch who had not yet been entrusted with the episcopate,
and certain others. Since all of them belonged to the same noxious brother-
hood, Eusebius sheltered him for some time). (3) And so at that time this
Arius wrote and addressed letters full of all sorts of foolishness, which
contained the whole of his heretical creed, to Eusebius in Nicomedia, this
before he had come to him in Nicomedia, putting in them no more than
what he really thought. 1 feel obliged to offer one of them here which has
come into my hands, so that the readers can see that 1 have neither said
nor am saying anything slanderous against anyone. Here is the letter: 5

4 Holl u7ioupYo;, MSS x°P°S-

5 Cf. Theodoret Haer. 1.5.1-4.

ARLANS

337

6.1 Greetings in the Lord from Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexan-
der for the all-conquering truth of which you too are a defender, to the most
beloved man of God, the faithful and orthodox Master Eusebius.

6.2 As my father Ammonius is arriving in Nicomedia it seems to me rea-
sonable and proper to address you through him, at the same time recalling
your characteristic love and [kindly] disposition toward the brethren for the
sake of God and his Christ. For the bishop is harassing and persecuting us
severely, and stirring up every sort of evil against us, (3) so that he has driven
us from the city as godless men because we do not agree with his public
declaration, “Always God, always a Son. Together with a Father, a Son. The
Son co-exists with God without origination, ever begotten, begotten without
origination. Not by a thought or a moment of time is God prior to the Son,
[but] there is ever a God, ever a Son, the Son from God himself" (4) And as
your brother in Caesarea, Eusebius, and Theodotus, Paulinas, Athanasius,
Gregory, Aetius and all the bishops in the east say that God is prior to the Son
without beginning, they have become anathema — except for the ignorant
sectarians Philogonius, Hellanicus and Macarius, some of whom say that
the Son is an eructation and others, an uncreated emanation. (5) And to
these impieties we cannot even listen, not if the sectarians threaten us with
a thousand deaths.

6,6 But what is it that we say and believe, and that we have taught and
teach ? That the Son is not uncreated or in any respect part of an uncre-
ated being, or made of anything previously existent. He was brought into
being by the will and counsel [of God], before all times and before all ages,
as unbegotten God in the fullest sense, and unalterable; and before he was
begotten, created, determined or established, he did not exist. (7) But we are
persecuted because we have said, “The Son has a beginning but God is with-
out beginning.” We are also persecuted because we have said, “He is made
from nothing.” But we have so said in the sense that he is not a part of God
or made from any thing previously existent. It is for this reason that we are
persecuted; the rest you know.

I pray for your good health in the Lord, my true fellow Lucianist Eusebius;
be mindful of my afflictions.

7,1 Moreover, I subjoin another letter written in supposed self-defense
from Nicomedia by Arius to the most holy Pope Athanasius and sent by
him to Alexandria. Once again it is filled, to an incomparably worse degree,
with the blasphemous expressions of his venom. This is the letter: 6

6 Cf. Ath. Syn. 16.

338

ARLANS

7.2 Greetings in the Lord from the presbyters and deacons to our blessed
Pope and bishop, Alexander.

7.3 Our faith which we have received from our forefathers and learned
from you as well, blessed Pope, is as follows. We know that one God, the only
ingenerate, the only eternal, who alone is without beginning, only is the true
God, alone has immortality, alone is wise, alone good, alone sovereign, alone
judge with the governance and care of all, immutable and unalterable, just
and good, < the Lord *> of the Law and Prophets and of the New Testament —
that this God has begotten an only Son before eternal times, ( 4 ) and through
him has made the ages and the rest. He has begotten him not in appear-
ance but in truth and brought him into being, immutable and unalterable,
by his own will; ( 5 ) God’s perfect creature but not like any other creature;
an offspring but not like any other offspring; ( 6 ) and not an emanation, as
Valentinus believed the Father’s offspring to be; nor as Mani represented the
offspring as a co-essential part of the Father; nor like Sabellius, who, dividing
the Unity, said “Son-Father”; nor as Hieracas called him a light kindled from
a light, or a lamp become two; ( 7 ) nor priorly existent and later generated or
created anew as a Son. You yourself blessed Pope, have very often publicly
denounced those who give these explanations in the church and assembly.
But as we say, He is a Son created by the will of God before the times and
ages, who has received his life, being and glory from the Father, the Father
subsisting together with him. For by giving him the inheritance of all things
the Father did not deprive himself of his possession of ingeneracy in himself,
for he is the source of all.

8,1 Thus there are three entities, a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. And
God, who is the cause of all, is the sole and only being without beginning. But
the Son, who was begotten of the Father though not in time, and who was
created and established before the ages, did not exist before his begetting
but was alone brought into being before all things by the Father alone, not
in time. ( 2 ) Nor is he eternal, or co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father.
Nor does he have a being simultaneous with the Father’s, as some speak of
things [which are naturally] related to something else, thus introducing two
uncreateds. But God is before all as a Unit and the first principle of all things.
And thus he is also before Christ, as we have learned fromyou whenyou have
preached publicly < in > the church.

8.3 Thus, in that the Son has his being from God < who > has provided
him with life, glory and all things, God is his first cause. For God is his ruler,
as his God and prior to him in existence, because the Son originates from

ARLANS

339

him. (4) And if “out of the belly ,' 1 and “I came forth from the Father and am
come, ” 7 8 are taken by some to mean that he is part of a co-essential God and
an emanation, the Father must be composite, divisible and mutable — and
in their opinion the incorporeal God has a body and, given their premises,
is subject to the consequences of corporeality. We pray for your good health
in the Lord, blessed Pope. (5) Arius, Aeithales, Achillas, Carpones, Sarma-
tas, Arius, presbyters; the deacons Euzoeus, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius,
Gains; the bishops Secundus of Pentapolis, Theonas of Libya, Pistus — the
bishop the Arians consecrated for Alexandria.

g,r Now that matters had been stirred up in this way, Alexander wrote
to the emperor Constantine. And the blessed emperor summoned Arius
and certain bishops, and interrogated them. (2) But < with the support >
of his co-religionists Arius at first denied the charge before the emperor,
while inwardly hatching the plot against the church. And after summoning
him the blessed Constantine, as though to some degree inspired < by > the
Holy Spirit, addressed him saying, “I trust in God that if you are holding
something back and denying it, the Lord of all has the power to confound
you speedily, especially since it is by him that you have sworn.” Hence
Arius was indeed caught holding the same opinions, and was exposed
before the emperor.

g,3 But he made a similar denial again, and many of his defenders peti-
tioned the emperor for him through Eusebius of Nicomedia. But mean-
while the emperor was moved with zeal, and wrote a long circular against
Arius and his creed to the whole Roman realm, filled with all sorts of wis-
dom and truthful sayings. (4) It is still preserved among the scholarly and
begins, “The most high Augustus Constantine, to Arius and the Arians. A
bad expositor is in very truth the image and representation of the devil.” 9
(5) Then, after some other remarks and after giving a long refutation of
Arius from the sacred scripture, he also indignantly directed a line from
Homer against him and quoted it, and I feel that I must quote it here as
well. (6) It goes, “Come now, Ares Arius, there is a need for shields. Do this
not, we pray; let Aphrodite’s speech restrain thee.” 10

7 Ps 109:3.

8 John 16:28.

9 The entire letter, which may not actually be Constantine’s, is found at Ath. Nic. 40.

10 Ath. Syn. 40.6. The Homeric line is apparently a misquotation of Iliad 5.31.

340

ARLANS

10, i 11 Arius wished to be received back into the church in Constanti-
nople, and Eusebius pressed for this and had great influence with the
emperor, and kept pestering the bishop of Constantinople at that time.
The bishop did not wish to be in the same fellowship with Arius or enter
into communion with him, and was troubled and groaned, but Eusebius
said, “If you won’t do it by your own choice he’ll come in with me tomor-
row at the dawn of the Lord’s Day, and what can you do about it?”

10,2 That most pious and godfearing bishop, Alexander, bishop of the
best of cities — (he and the bishop in Alexandria had the same name) —
spent the whole day after he heard that, and the night, in groans and
mourning, praying and beseeching God either to take his life so that he
would not be polluted by communion with Arius, or to work some won-
der. And his prayer was answered. (3) Arius went out that night from the
need to relieve himself, went to the privy, sat down in the stalls inside,
and suddenly burst and expired. Thus, he was overtaken and surrendered
his life in a smelly place, just as he had belched out a dirty heresy,

11,1 When this was over the emperor felt concerned for the church,
because by now many members often differed with one another and
there were many schisms. He therefore convened an ecumenical council,
and the names of 318 bishops are preserved to this day. And they con-
demned Arius’ creed in the city of Nicaea, and confessed the orthodox
and unswerving creed of the fathers, which has been handed down to us
from the apostles and prophets. (2) After the bishops had signed this and
condemned the insane Arian sect, < peace* > was restored. They passed
certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time
decreed with regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous
concord in the celebration of God’s holy and most excellent day. For it
was variously observed by people; some kept it early, some between [the
disputed dates], but others, late. (3) And in a word, there was a great deal
of controversy at that time. But through the blessed Constantine God
directed the right ordering of these things for the sake of peace.

11,4 After Arius had been condemned and these measures taken Alex-
ander died that same year after Achillas had succeeded him, but Theo-
nas was consecrated too, by the Melitians. Then the blessed Athanasius
succeeded Achillas after he had been bishop for three months. 12 Athana-

11 For the story that follows see Ath. Ep. Ser. Mort. Ar.

12 Athanasius was actually consecrated a month and a half after Achillas' death.
Epiphanius may be misinterpreting Ath. Apol. Sec. 59.3, which refers, not to the time of

ARLANS

341

sius was Alexander’s deacon at that time, and had been sent by him to
court; as Alexander’s death approached he had ordered that the episco-
pate be conferred on Athanasius. (5) But the custom at Alexandria is that
the consecrators do not delay after the death of a bishop; < the consecra-
tion* > is held at once for the sake of peace, to avoid conflicts among the
laity with some for one candidate and some for another. (6) Since Athana-
sius was not there they were forced to consecrate Achillas. But the throne
belonged to the person called by God and designated by the blessed Alex-
ander, and the priesthood was prepared for him.

rr,7 Thus Athanasius arrived and was consecrated. He was very much a
zealot for the faith and a protector of the church, and by now there were
[schismatic] services everywhere, and a splinter group of laity formed by
the so-called Melitians, for the reason I gave in my piece on Melitius. In
his desire to achieve the unification of the church Athanasius accused,
threatened, admonished, and no one would listen. (8) This was the reason
for all the intrigues and plots against him, the extremity of his God-given
zeal. And so he was subjected to banishments too because of his excom-
munication by the Arians with the highly unjust secular power, (g) But
enough about the blessed Athanasius. His story has been told in full detail
in the above description of Melitius.

r2,r Now Arius was infused with the power of the devil, and wagged
his tongue against his own Master with shameless impudence — originally
from his supposed desire to expound the words of Solomon in his Prov-
erbs, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways. Before the age he
set me up in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he made
the depths, before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains
were settled, before all hills he begot me.” 13 (2) This became the introduc-
tion of his error; neither < he himself > nor his disciples were ashamed
to call the creator of all things, the Word begotten of the Father without
beginning and not in time, a creature.

r2,3 But then, on the basis of this one passage, he directed his malig-
nant mind into many evil paths, < he himself > and his successors, and
they set out to utter ten thousand blasphemies and more against the Son
of God and the Holy Spirit. (4) They broke the front, as it were, and con-
cord of the holy, orthodox faith and church, [though] not by their own

Athanasius’ consecration, but to the time between the Council of Nicaea and the death of
the bishop Alexander. With Epiphanius’ account cf. Theod. 1.26.1.

13 Prov 8:22-25; Cf. Ath. Nic. 13; C. Ar. 53.

342

ARLANS

power or wisdom. The deluded people who were [truly] inclined to join
them were few, but many gradually came in from hypocrisy; and many,
besides, were forced into communion with them because they had < no
way to resist* >. And no one < of sound faith* > was their agent, but the
care< less >ness of the faithful first, and the protection of emperors.

12,5 The beginning < came with > the emperor Constantius, who was a
meek and good man in all other respects and who, as the son of the great
and perfect Constantine with his piety and unwavering observance of the
right faith, was pious himself, and good in many ways. (6) But he was
mistaken only in this matter, his failure to follow the faith of his fathers —
not by his own fault, but because of those who will give account at the
day of judgment, the bishops in appearance, so-called, but corrupters of
God’s true faith. (7) These must give account, both for the faith and for the
persecution of the church, and the many wrongs and murders that have
been committed in the churches because of them; and for the vast num-
bers of laity who still today are suffering affliction under the open sky; and
for Constantius of blessed memory himself who, since he did not know
the orthodox faith, was led astray by them and in his ignorance deferred
to them as priests. For he was not aware of the eror of the blindness and
heresy in them which was caused by the devil’s plot.

13,1 Secondly, their gang of snakes gained further strength through
Eudoxius, who wormed his way into the confidence of the most pious and
God-loving emperor Valens and, once again, corrupted his ear. 14 The rea-
son they could maintain their position was Valens’ baptism by Eudoxius.
(2) Otherwise < they would have been refuted > long ago even by women
and kids — never mind the more mature, who understand all the exact
terms of godliness and right faith, but even by anyone with any partial
glimmer of understanding of the truth — and, since they were refuted by
the ancients, they would have been harried as blasphemers of the Master,
as second killers of the Lord and despisers of the divine protection of our
Lord Jesus Christ. (3) But by the emperor’s patronage, that is, his protec-
tion of them, < they are in the ascendent >, so as to put into effect all the
wrongs that have been and are still being done by them at Alexandria,
Nicomedia, Mesopotamia and Palestine, under the patronage of the same,
current emperor.

14 Cf. Socr. 4.1.6; Soz. 4.6.10; Theod. 4.12.4.

ARLANS

343

14.1 All the rest of their teachings are contrived from this verse in
Proverbs, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for his works.” 15
And < they gather > every possible agreement and equivalent to this text
< from the scriptures >, and everything that could be in accord with it,
although neither the text itself nor the other passages say anything of the
sort about the divinity of the Son of God. (2) All the same, anything like
this — the text in the Apostle, “Receive ye the high priest of your profes-
sion, who is faithful to him that made him”; 16 and < the one > in John’s
Gospel, “He it is of whom I said unto you that he that cometh after me
hath come into being 17 before me”; 18 and the one in Acts, “Be it be known
unto all you house of Israel that God hath made this Jesus whom ye cruci-
fied both Lord and Christ,” 19 and others like these — wherever < they find
some text* > of note < they collect it* > as a defense against their foes.
(3) For they are indeed foes and conspirators. “Let God arise and let his
foes be scattered” 20 might well have been written of them and their kind.
They appear to be members of our household — there is nothing worse
than foes of one’s own household, for “A man’s foes are all the men of his
household.” 21 And this too probably applies to them.

15.1 For they leap up like savage dogs to repel their foes and say, “What
do you say of the Son of God?” (For these are their devices for introducing
their poison to the simple.)

“And what more can there be after this, after one calls him the Son of
God, you folks who are ‘wise in your own eyes and prudent in their sight,’ 22
and give the appearance of knowledgeability? What more can one add to
the name of Jesus, other than to say that he is true Son, of the Father and
not different from him?”

15.2 Then they scornfully jump right up and say, “How can he be ‘of
God?’ ” And if you ask them, “Isn’t he the Son?” they confess the sonship
in name but deny it in force and meaning and simply want to call him
a bastard, not a real son. “For if he is of God,” they say, “and if God as
it were begot < a Son > from himself, from his actual substance or his

15 Prov 8:22.

16 Heb 3:1-2. Cf. Ath. Or. I C. Ar. 53; Or. II C. Ar. 6; 10; De Sent. Dion. 10-11 (PG 25, 493B,
496B).

17 ysyovE.

18 John 1:15.

19 Acts 2:36. Cf. Ath. Or. I C. Ar. 53; Or. 2 C. Ar. 11-12.

20 Ps 67:2.

21 Matt 10:36.

22 Isa 5:11.

344

ARLANS

own essence — well then, he swelled, or was cut, or was expanded or con-
tracted in begetting him, or underwent some physical suffering.” 23

And they are simply ridiculous to compare their own characteristics
with God’s, and draw a parallel between God and themselves. 24 (4) There
can be nothing of the kind in God. “God is spirit” 25 and has begotten the
Only-begotten of himself ineffably, inconceivably and spotlessly.

15,5 “If he is of his essence then,” they say, “why doesn’t he know the
day and the hour, as he says, ‘But of that day or that hour knoweth no man,
neither the angels, neither the Son, but the Father only?’ 26 And if he is ‘of
the Father,’ how could he become flesh?’ How could that nature which
cannot be contained put on flesh, if by nature he were of the Father?”

16.1 And they do not know how they are gathering these calculations
together to their own shame. For if he took flesh, and suffered and was
crucified in it because he was different from the Father’s essence, they
should tell us which other spiritual beings donned flesh even though they
were creatures. For they cannot help admitting that the Son is superior
to all. Even if they call him a creature, they admit that he is superior to
all his creatures.

16.2 Indeed, they want to flatter him as though they were doing him
a favor — as though they were striking him with one hand but anoint-
ing him with the other. For they wish to make this concession to him as
though by their own choice, and say, “We call him a creature, but not like
any other creature; a product of creation, but not like any other product;
and an offspring, but not like any other offspring.” 27 This to deprive him
of the begetting which by nature is proper to him by saying, “not like any
other offspring,” and declare him a true creature by saying, “not like any
other creature.”

16.3 Whatever a creature may be, it is a creature. Even though its name
is any number of times more exalted it is just the same as all creatures. 28
The sun cannot not be a creature just like a rock even though it is brighter
than the rest. Nor, because the moon outshines the stars, is it for this rea-
son not one of the creatures. “Behold, all things are thy servants.” 29

23 Cf. Ath. Or. 1 16; 28.

24 Cf. Ath. Or. 1 16; 28.

25 John 4:24.

26 Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36. Cf. Ath. Or. Ill C. Ar. 26.

27 Athanasius quotes this at Or. II 19.

28 For a similar argument see the Letter of Marcellus, Pan. 73,4,6-7; Ath Or. II 20.

29 Ps 118:91.

ARLANS

345

16,4 But the Only-begotten is truth and his word is true, as he said, “If
ye continue in my word ye are truly my disciples, and ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 30 But if his word is truth and
frees the souls whom he sets free, how much more is he himself free —
since he is truth, and sets his believing servants free! For all things are his
servants, and his Father’s, and the Holy Spirit’s.

17,1 Then again they say, “How could he come in the flesh, if he was
of the Father’s essence?” [Is it not true that] angels, who are his servants,
have not taken flesh? Archangels? Hosts? All the other spiritual beings?
(2) But they say too that the Spirit is even more inferior, and is the crea-
ture of a creature, since he is < the product > of the Word. Why did the
Spirit not take flesh then, since, on Arius’ premises, he can have a face
more changeable than the Son’s? But since the Son was the Father’s wis-
dom he consented, by his own perfection, to assume our weakness, so that
all salvation would come to the world through him. (3) But people who
turn good things to bad are ungrateful — ungrateful, unwise, insulters and
blasphemers of their own Master.

And whatever else they say, in the last analysis they mean it as a detrac-
tion of him. “If he was of the Father’s essence, why was he hungry? Scrip-
ture says too that God ‘shall not hunger or thirst, nor is there any finding
out of his counsel.’ 31 But Christ was hungry and thirsty. Why did he tire
from his journey and sit down, < when scripture says > that God ‘shall not
weary? 32 (4) And why did he say, “The Father that hath sent me is greater
than I?’ 33 The sender is one person, the sent, another.”

And it is plain that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the
Father. We do not talk like Sabellius, who says that he is the Son-Father.
(5) If he had not said, “Another is he that hath sent me,” 34 and, “I go unto
my God and your God, unto my Father and your Father,” 35 < the disciples
would have believed that he himself was the Father. < This is why* > he
said, < “My God.” But he said, “your God,” because* > his disciples were
begotten < only by grace* >, and not by nature from the essence of God.
< This is why > he said, “your Father,” to them.

30 John 8:31-32.

31 Isa 40:28.

32 Cf. Isa 40:28.

33 John 14:28.

34 Cf. John 5:32; 36.

35 John 20:17.

346

ARLANS

17,6 But people who say such things are just cracked. If he is called the
Son in name only and is not the Son by nature, he is no different from all
the other creatures even if he is of superior rank. Because the emperor
outranks his governors and generals, this does not mean that he does not
have the same limitations as the rest, and is not their fellow servant of the
same creation, since he is mortal, just as his subjects are. (7) And because
the sun surpasses the other stars, and the moon does to an extent, this
does not mean that they are not heavenly bodies subordinate [to God],
and subject to the ordinance of the one creator and maker, the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. (8) And because angels surpass the visible creatures
and, in comparison with the rest, are the greatest of all — for they were
created invisible, enjoy the supreme privilege of serving God with con-
tinual hymns, are immortal by grace though not by nature, and yet have
been vouchsafed a natural immortality by him who in himself is life and
immortality — [all] this does not mean that they do not serve with fear
and trembling, accountable and answerable to the holy Godhead, and
subject to his bidding and command.

18,1 This will help us < understand* > the exact nature of the truth we
are after: to say, “Son,” but say it without considering him a son in name
only, but say that the Son is a son by nature. With us too, many are called
sons without being sons by nature. But our real sons are called “true”; they
were actually begotten by us. (2) And if he was only called a son, as indeed
all have been called sons of God, he is no different from the rest. And why
is he worshiped as God? On Arius’ premises all the other things that have
been given the title of sons should be worshiped, since they are termed
sons of God. (3) But this is not the truth. The truth at all times knows
one only-begotten Son of God whom all things serve and worship, and to
whom "every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and
things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord to the glory of God the Father.” 36

18,4 But neither is the Holy Spirit equivalent to the other spirits since
the Spirit of God is one, a Spirit that proceeds from the Father and receives
of the Son. Arians, though, make him a creature of a creature. For they say,
“ ‘All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made
that was made.’ 37 (5) Therefore,” they say, “the Holy Spirit is a creature
too, since ‘all things were made by him.’ ”

36 Phil 2:10-11.

37 John 1:3.

ARLANS

347

And those who have lost their own souls for no good reason do not know
that created beings are one thing, and that < un >created beings — Father,
Son and Fioly Spirit, one God, Trinity in truth and Unity in oneness — are
another. (6) This is the reason that God is one: there are not two Fathers,
or two Sons or two Fioly Spirits, and the Son is not different from the
Father but begotten of him, and the Holy Spirit is not different. But the
Son is only-begotten, without beginning < and > not in time. And the Holy
Spirit, as the Father himself and the Only-begotten know, is neither begot-
ten nor created, nor alien to the Father and Son; “he anointed Christ with
the Holy Spirit.” 38 If the Only-begotten is himself anointed with the Spirit,
who can bring a charge against the Holy Trinity?

ig,i Then again the insane Arius says, “Why did the Lord say, Why
callest thou me good? One is good, God’ ” 39 as though himself denying his
own goodness?” (2) Because they are soulish and fleshly, are discerned
by the Holy Spirit and devoid of him, and lack the gift of the Holy Spirit
which gives wisdom to all, they do not know God’s power and goodness,
or the dispensation of God’s wisdom.

19,3 “Again,” says Arius, “the sons of Zebedee asked him through their
mother if one of them might sit at his right and one at his left in his king-
dom, and he told them, ‘Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink
the cup that I shall drink of? And when they said, Yea, he said unto them,
Ye shall drink of my cup, but to sit on my right hand and on my left is
not mine to give, but is for them for whom it is prepared of the Father.’ 40
(4) Then the apostle says, ‘God raised him from the dead, 41 as though he
needed someone to raise him. And it says in the Gospel according to Luke,
‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening him when he was in
agony, and he sweat; and his sweat was as it were drops of blood,’ when
he went out to pray before his betrayal. 42 (5) And again, on the cross he
said, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, that is, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me.’ 43 And do you see,” says Arius, “how he is in need of help?”
19,6 But as to his words, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” 44
< they cite >, “We two are one, that they also may be one,” 45 “And do

38 Acts 10:38.

39 Mark 10:18; Matt 20:28. Cf. Marcellus of Ancyra, Inc. 1.7.

40 Cf. Matt 20:20-23.

41 Rom 10:9. Cf. Marcellus of Ancyra Inc. 1.7.

42 Cf. Luke 22:43-44; Ath. Or. Ill 26.54.

43 Matt 27:46; cf. Ath. Or. III.

44 John 14:10.

45 John 17:22.

348

ARLANS

you see,” he says, “that we too shall be one as the Father and the Son are
one."* > Thus he is not speaking of a oneness by nature, but of a oneness
of concord.”

19,7 But not only this; they also deny that he has received a human
soul, and do so deliberately. 46 For they confess that he has true flesh from
Mary, and everything human except for a soul. Thus, when you hear of his
hunger, thirst, weariness, journeying, sweat, sleep or anger, and say that he
needed these because of his human nature, they will tell you afterwards
that flesh does not do these things of itself unless it has a soul. (8) And in
fact, this is true. “What can this mean,” they say, “except that his ‘divine
nature’ had needs?” — so that, when they say that his “divine nature” had
needs, they can declare that he is alien to and different from his Father’s
true essence and nature.

19,9 I believe, however, that from one, two, or five of their poorly cho-
sen, refuted and exploded proof texts to everyone 47 who has understanding. And since the whole
truth is proclaimed, and plainly confirmed, in the faith of orthodoxy,
< 1 trust that* > even if they cite a million other texts besides these con-
trived expositions, the Arians will stand convicted in the eyes of those
people who have godly good sense. For since they mean the same, most
of these will be refuted in [the refutation of] these few.

20,1 And I shall start my argument first with the place where Arius
began the evil planting of their bitter root, the words of Solomon, The
Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for his works.” 48 (2) And scrip-
ture nowhere confirmed, nor did any apostle ever mention this text to
apply it to the name of Christ. Thus Solomon is not speaking of the Son of
God at all, even if he says, “I, wisdom, have given counsel and knowledge
a home, and 1 have summoned judgment” 49 (3) How many “wisdoms” are
loosely called God’s? But there is one Only-begotten, and he is not given
that name catachrestically, but in truth.

For all things are God’s wisdom, and whatever is from God is wisdom.
(4) But the unique, supreme Wisdom is something else — that is, the Only-
begotten, He who is called wisdom, not loosely but in truth, He who is

46 Cf. Ps.-Ath. C. Apollin. 2.3; Theod. Haer. Fab. 4.1; Eustathius 18.

47 Drexl and MSS tco otjvectiv XEXTVjpEvw, MSS 7ravri xcp . . .

48 Prov 8:22. This is quoted as an Arian proof text at Ath. Or. I 53, but given no par-
ticular emphasis.

49 Prov 8:12.

ARLANS

349

always with the Father, “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 50 But
“The poor man’s wisdom is despised”; 51 and, “since in the wisdom of God
the world knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the Gospel
to save them that believe”; 52 and, “God hath made foolish the wisdom of
this world”; 53 And, “God gave to Solomon an heart like the sand of the sea,
and made him wiser than the sons of Ana”; 54 and, “God gave wisdom to
Bezaleel, and God filled Uri with wisdom.” 55

20,5 And there is a great deal to say about wisdom, and “Where is the
place of understanding, and where can wisdom be found?” 56 Even though
the renowned wisdom says, “I, wisdom, have given counsel and knowl-
edge a home, and I have summoned judgment. By me kings reign, and
through me princes are great, rulers write righteousness, and despots pos-
sess the earth. (6) I love them that love me, and they that seek me shall
find me. Wealth and glory are mine, and the possession of many goods,
and righteousness. I walk in the way of righteousness, and I tread in the
midst of right paths, to apportion substance to them that love me, and
fill their treasures with goods. (7) If I tell you the incidents of each day,
I shall remember to recount the happenings from everlasting. The Lord
created me the beginning of his ways, for his works. Before the age he
established me in the beginning, before he made the earth and before he
made the deeps, before fountains of water came forth, before mountains
were founded and before all hills he begat me,” 57 and so on — (8) [even
so], since there are some who want to dispute the passage, our opponents
will obviously reply by citing the term, “wisdom,” and the sequel to it, ‘The
Lord created me,” together with, “I, wisdom, have given counsel a home.”
“See here,” < they will say >, “wisdom gave her own name at the outset
and, as she went on in order, indicated herself when she said, ‘The Lord
created me.’ (9) See, she says, ‘I, wisdom,’ above; and below she says, ‘If
I tell you the happenings of each day, I shall remember to recount the
things from everlasting.’ And what does she mean [by the ‘happenings
from everlasting’]? ‘The Lord created me the beginning of his ways.’ ”

50 1 Cor 1:24.

51 Eccles 9:16.

52 1 Cor 1:21.

53 1 Cor 1:20.

54 3 Kms 4:25; 27.

55 Exod 31:2.

56 Job 28:12.

57 Prov 8:12; 15-18; 20-25.

350

ARLANS

2i,i I have said that many things which < are > loosely < termed >
wisdoms have been given by God from time to time, since God does all
things with wisdom. But there is one true wisdom of the Father, the sub-
sistent divine Word. For the word [“wisdom”] itself (i.e., at Prov. 8:22) by
no means compels me to speak of the Son of God; < scripture > did not
make that clear, nor did any of the apostles mention it, and not the Gospel
either. (2) But if it were taken of the Son of God — the word [in itself] is
not the same [as “Son”], and does not lend itself to an immediate judg-
ment [as to whether it means “Son” at this point].

For the book is entirely proverbs. And nothing in a proverb has the
same meaning [that it usually does] ; it is described verbally in one way,
but intended allegorically with another meaning. (3) If Solomon says this,
however, and some venture to apply it to the Son of God — never! The
word is not a reference to his Godhead. (4) But if it can be applied to
Christ’s human nature — for “Wisdom hath builded her house” 58 — and if it
can therefore be piously spoken in the person of Christ’s human nature, 59
as though his human nature were saying, “The Lord created me” of his
Godhead — (that is, “the Lord built me in Mary’s womb”) — “as the begin-
ning of his ways for his works,” [then wisdom might indeed mean “Son”
here.] 60 (5) For the beginning of the “ways” of Christ’s descent into the
world is the body he took from Mary in his “work” of righteousness and
salvation.

But some crackbrain who is struck with this frightful plague and has
enmity for the Son of God in his heart will be sure to rush forward and
say, (6) “He said, ‘If I tell you the incidents of each day, I shall remember
to recount the happenings from everlasting.’ 61 And you see that he says,
‘from everlasting.’ But according to Matthew God’s incarnation came after
seventy-two generations; how can ‘from everlasting’ be said by the human
nature?” (22,1) And those who have strayed entirely off the road of the
truth do not realize that whatever the sacred scripture wishes to teach,
< if > it is beginning an exposition it does not go straight to the oldest data
and, as it were, the main point, but begins with the events nearest at hand
in order to show last of all what came first. (2) For this is why it said, “If I
tell you the incidents of each day,” [first], but afterwards,” I < shall > also

58 Prov 9:1.

59 So Athanasius, much more confidently, at Nic. 14.2-4.

60 Prov 8:21a.

61 Prov 8:21a.

ARLANS

351

recount the things from everlasting.” 62 So God showed Moses the burning
bush first, and the vision in the first instance was that of a bush on fire.
And an angel spoke to him immediately, but later the Lord spoke to him
from the bush.

22,3 But Moses did not ask him straight off about what he had seen,
but inquired about things in the distant past. For God said, “Come, I send
thee to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The God of
your fathers hath sent me, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the
God of Jacob,” 63 — naming Abraham and the others, five or six genera-
tions before Moses. And since he had said “the God of your fathers” he
had declared something ancient to him. (4) But Moses, with God-given
understanding, was not asking about this but about something even more
ancient: “If I go unto them and they say to me, What is his name? what
shall I say unto them?” 64 and then he revealed his name: “I am He Who
Is.” 65 (5) And he had begun first with the things nearest in time, but last
of all revealed what was furthest in the past.

Luke too begins with things that are later and nearest in time, “And Jesus
began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of
Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthan, the son of Nathan, the son
of David, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Abraham, the
son of Nahor, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Enoch,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” 66 And you see how he
spoke of the incarnation first, and then the [things he says] last.

22,6 And so when Matthew, in the fleshly genealogy, wished to remind
people of Christ’s human nature, he did not say at once, “The birth ofjesus
Christ the son of Abraham.” He said “son of David” first and then “son
of Abraham,” indicating the sight most lately seen and the most recent
happening and [then] one still further in the past, to show the indispens-
ability of what is still higher above all creation.

23,1 And so, when the blessed John came and found people preoccu-
pied with Christ’s human nature on earth, with the Ebionites gone wrong
because of < Mathew’s > tracing of Christ’s earthly genealogy from Abra-
ham and Luke’s carrying of it back to Adam — and the Cerinthians and
Merinthians, saying that he was conceived sexually as a mere man, and

62 Prov 8:21a.

63 Exod 3:10:15.

64 Exod 3:13.

65 Exod 3:14.

66 Luke 3:23-38.

352

ARLANS

the Nazoraeans and many other sects, — (2) John, as though coming along
behind them (he was the fourth evangelist) began to recall them from
their wandering, as it were, and their preoccupation with Christ’s coming
below. As though following behind and seeing that some were pointed
towards rough, steep paths and had left the straight, true road, he began,
as it were, to say to them, “Where are you headed? Where are you going,
you who are taking that rough road full of obstacles and leading to a pit?
(3) That isn’t so! Turn back! The divine Word begotten of the Father on
high does not date only from Mary. He is not from the time of Joseph
her betrothed. He is not from the time of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, David,
Abraham, Jacob, Noah and Adam. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ ” 67

23,4 The word, “was,” followed by “was” and followed by another “was,”
admits of no “was not.” And you see, first of all, how scripture gave the most
recent events at once — how Matthew showed the way with the genealogy
and still did not give < all > the precise facts himself, though he surely car-
ried the genealogy into the past. And Mark < described > the events in the
world, a voice crying in the wilderness, < and > the Lord who was foretold
by the Prophets and Law. And Luke traced him from the most recent times
back to the earliest, < But later John, coming fourth, made the crowning
touch manifest, and the perfection of the order on high and the eternal
Godhead. (5) In the same way Solomon in his proverb < first indicated* >
the beginning of the ways — (if, indeed, some may wish to say with piety
that, since his Godhead itself had made the flesh and human nature as
“the beginning of his ways for his works” 68 of men’s salvation and his own
goodness)— his incarnate self, since it says itself of Christ’s Godhead, “The
Godhead itself founded the house,” 69 and immediately afterwards, as the
topic develops, says, “He founded me in the beginning.”

23,6 Was the Son of God really created, and later established, in his
divine nature? The clever folks, the observers of heaven, had better tell me
the art by which wisdom was created, the tool with which it was estab-
lished. But if it is allowable even to conceive of it, let us flee from such
profound blasphemy, to keep our hands off the divine nature of the Only-
begotten, which is always with the Father and has been begotten of him.
(7) For < the > Lord was the Word, always with the Father, always wisdom,

67 John 1:1.

68 Prov 8:22.

69 Prov 8:23.

ARLANS

353

always God of God, true and not spurious light, always deriving his being
from the Father, and always truth and life.

24,1 And why should I say so much about this? He then says, "He
established me in the beginning.” 70 The godly can therefore see that
here he means the human soul. (2) For the incarnate human nature says,
“The Lord created me,” 71 — if, indeed, it should be taken in this way. “He
established,” 72 however, should be taken in the sense that he was estab-
lished in the soul. But “Before all hills he begot me,” 73 is meant to show
that his begetting is from on high.

And I have said these things, by no means to insist on them, but as a
devout way of understanding the passage as a reference to the human
nature. (3) Even though I must speak in this way, no one can ever make
me say that this passage refers to Christ. But it if is to be said of Christ,
there indeed is its meaning, not obtained by guesswork but in accord with
the piety of the thought, so as not to attribute any deficiency to the Son
< or > suppose that he has a Godhead which is inferior to the Father’s
essence. (4) For some of our fathers, and orthodox, 74 — if indeed we must
speak in this way of “The Lord created me and established me” 75 — have
interpreted this by taking it of the human nature. And < because > this
is a pious thought many important fathers have taught it. (5) And if one
should not wish to accept the teaching of the orthodox [on this point], he
will not be compelled to and it will do no harm to those who are strangers
to the faith and pagans.

For neither will < the fact that Christ suffered* > for us entail any defi-
ciency in < the Son >; his Godhead is free [from suffering] and is always
with the Father. (6) Christ suffered whatever he suffered, but was not
changed in nature; his Godhead retained its impassibility. Thus, when he
willed of his own good pleasure to suffer for humanity — since the God-
head, which is impassible in itself, cannot suffer — he took our passible
body since he is Wisdom, consented to suffering in it and taking our suf-
ferings upon him in the flesh, accompanied by the Godhead.

70 Prov 8:23.

71 Prov 8:22.

72 Prov 8:23.

73 Prov 8:25.

74 For example, Athanasius?

75 Prov 8:22; 23.

354

ARLANS

For the Godhead does not suffer. (7) How can the One who said, “I am
the life,” 76 die? God remains impassible but shares the sufferings of the
flesh so that, even though Godhead does not suffer, the suffering may be
counted as the Godhead’s and our salvation may be in God. The suffering
is in the flesh that we may have, not a passible but an impassible God who
counts the suffering as his own, not of necessity but by his own choice.

25,1 But anyway, neither have these people examined the Hebrew
expressions, or found out or < understood > what they mean, and yet
they have willfully and rashly risen up as deadly foes, looking for a chance
to mutilate the faith — or themselves, rather, for they can’t mutilate the
truth. And since they have found “The Lord created me,” they recklessly
dream as though they were having hallucinations, bringing mankind
things that are of no use, and disturbing the world. (2) This is not what
the Hebrew means, and so Aquila says, “The Lord got me.” Men who have
sired children always say, “I have gotten a son.”

But neither did Aquila render the meaning. “I have gotten a son” implies
something new, but in God there can be nothing new. (3) Even if one con-
fesses that the Son has been begotten of the Father and not created, he
was begotten without time and without beginning. (4) For there can be no
time between the Father and the Son, or there will be some time < previ-
ous > to the Son’s. For if all things are made through him, so are the times.
(5) But if there is a time before Him who is before all — how can there be?
But if there is, then we shall need another Son, through whom the time
before the Son has been made.

And there are many things which lead into endless perplexity the
minds of those people who “are always busy but do nothing good.” 77 (6) In
the Hebrew it says, “Adonai” (which means, “the Lord”) “kanani,” which
can be rendered both "hatched 78 me” and “got me.” In the strictest sense,
however, it means, “hatched me.” And which hatchling is not begotten
from the substance of its begetter? And here, among bodily creatures, the
young are produced by the pairings of male and female — from men to
cattle, birds and all the rest. (7) And so, since the Only-begotten was in all
respects the Father’s wisdom and willed to do all things for our correction,
so that no one would form a false notion of him and be deprived of the
truth, he was not conceived from a man’s seed when he made his home

76 John 11:25.

77 2 Thes 3:11.

78 The verb is not elsewhere attested but cf. Hebrew Jp, “nest.”

ARLANS

355

in the human race, when he was truly born of a woman and lay in the
Virgin’s womb during the period of gestation. Otherwise his birth in the
flesh might have required pairing and sexual congress. But he took flesh
only from his mother and yet made his human nature complete in his
own image — not deficient, but true human nature.

25,8 And his not being of a man’s seed did not make him deficient. He
to whom all things belong took all things in their perfection: flesh, sinews,
veins and everything else; a soul, truly and not in appearance; a mind; and
all other human characteristics except for sin, as scripture says, “He was
in all points tempted as a man, apart from sin.” 79 (g) Thus, by being born
in the flesh here simply of a mother, perfectly man and without defect,
he would show those who desire to see the truth and not blind their own
minds that on high he has been perfectly begotten of a Father on high,
without beginning and not in time; and below has been born of a mother
only, without spot or defilement.

26,1 But to explain the phrase, “Adonai kanani,” which means, “The Lord
hatched me.” Whatever begets, begets its like. A man begets a man and
God begets God, the man physically and God spiritually. (2) And as is the
man who begets, so is the man who is begotten of him. The human beget-
ter, who is subject to suffering, < begets > his own son, and the impassible
God begot the Son who was begotten of him without suffering — begot
him truly and not in appearance, of himself and not from outside himself,
impassible spirit impassibly begetting spirit, impassible God impassibly
begetting very God.

26,3 For if he created all things himself — and you admit, Arius, that
God has created all things — then he also begot the Son himself. (4) But if
you say, “If he begot, he suffered in begetting,” we will say to you that if
he suffered in begetting he tired from creating. But all that he wills, he has
simultaneously perfected in himself; the Godhead will not bring suffering
on the Son in the process of creation; nor can the Godhead be conceived
of as suffering because of its spotless begetting of the Son. For the Father
is unchangeable, the Son is unchangeable, the Holy Spirit is unchange-
able, one essence, one Godhead.

26,5 But you are sure to ask me, “Did God beget the Son by willing to
or without willing to?” And I am not like you, you troublemaker, to think
any such thing of God. “If he begot him without willing to, he begot him
unwillingly. And if he begot him willingly, the will came before the Son,

79 Cf. Heb 4:15.

356

ARLANS

and because of the will there will be at least a moment of time between
the Son [and the Father].” (6) But in God there is no time to will and no
will to think. God begot the Son neither by willing to nor without willing
to, but begot him in his nature which transcends will. For his is the nature
of Godhead, which neither needs a will nor does anything without a will,
but of itself possesses all things at once and is in want of nothing.

27,1 But Arius ferrets out still more texts, always wandering over every-
thing and fussing with unsound arguments — not as the sacred text is, but
as he < conceives of it > in his unhealthy preoccupation with controversies
and verbal disputes which are good for nothing except his own ruin and
his dupes’. < And > he seizes on the text where the Lord blessed his dis-
ciples and said, “Father, grant them to have life in themselves. And this
is life eternal, that they know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent.” 80 (2) But I have already dealt with all this in my
long work on the faith which, in my mediocrity and feebleness, I have been
compelled to write about faith at the urgent request of the brethren, and
have called the Ancoratus . 81 (3) And as, with God’s help, my poor mind
was able to gather the truths of God’s teaching from every scripture — like
an anchor for those who wish < to hold onto > the holy apostolic and pro-
phetic faith of our fathers which has been preached in God’s holy church
from the beginning until now — I have set it out clearly for our minds to
grasp and be certain of, < so that > they will not be shaken by the devil’s
devices or damaged by the seas which, by the sects with their bluster,
have been raised in the world.

27,4 For the Lord taught his own disciples, “If what ye have heard from
the beginning abide in you, and what ye have heard < of me > 82 abide in
you, ye shall abide in me and I in you, and I in the Father and ye in me.” 83
(5) Thus the truths of the faith, which we have heard from the Lord since
the beginning, abide in God’s holy church, (6) and God’s holy church and
orthodox faith thus abide in the Lord; and the Lord, the Only-begotten,
abides in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and we in him through the
Holy Spirit, provided we become temples to hold his Holy Spirit. (7) As
God’s holy apostle said, “Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you.” 84 Thus the Spirit is God of God; and through God’s Holy

80 Cf. John 17:2-3.

81 Cf. Anc. 71,3.

82 Holl: nap epou, MSS: an’ apxi)?.

83 1 John 1:1; John 15:4; 10; 17:21.

84 1 Cor 3:16.

ARLANS

357

Spirit we are called temples, if we give his Spirit a home within us. For,
< the > Spirit is the Spirit of Christ who proceeds < from > the Father and
receives of the Son, as the Only-begotten himself confesses.

28.1 I have discussed all this in that book of mine about faith — the
book which, as I said, I wrote to Pamphylia and Pisidia. 85 But here, since
I have come to the debated expressions one after another, I have had dili-
gently to make the same points over again, as it were, because of Arius,
the heresiarch with whom we are dealing, and the Arians who derive
from him — to demolish their wicked arguments which turn “sweet to bit-
ter, good to evil, and light to darkness.” 86 (2) For through the holy Isaiah
“Woe” is definitively pronounced by the Lord upon such people, who turn
good to evil. And God is in no way responsible for their kind. From pride,
prejudice, would-be wisdom or devilish conceit, each of them has been
deprived of the truth and, with his unsound teaching, brought an afflic-
tion on the world.

28,3 All right, let’s take up this text in order to understand the words
the Lord has spoken, as the holy apostle says, “We also have the Spirit
of God, that we may know the things that God hath bestowed upon us,
which things we likewise speak.” 87 (4) For the Lord says, “Grant them to
have life in themselves. And this is life eternal, that they may know thee,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 88

2g,i Now this trouble-maker, Arius, and his followers jump up and say,
“His praying to God at all, and saying, ‘Father, grant them to have life in
themselves,’ shows that he is not the equal of the Giver of the life. If he
were of the Father’s essence he would give the life himself, and not ask
the Father to give it to those who receive the gifts he gives in answer to
their requests.”

29.2 And the people who have turned their minds against themselves
do not realize that the Only-begotten came to be our example and salva-
tion in every way, and took his stand in the world like an athlete in an
arena, to destroy all that rebels against the truth — sometimes by idolatry,
sometimes by Jewish conceit, sometimes from unbelief, sometimes from
the vanity of human prejudice — came to teach men humility, so that no
human being will think himself important, but will ascribe everything to
the Father of all. (3) And so, although he is life — as he says, “I am the

85 Cf. Anc. Proem; 2,1; 5,1.

86 Cf. Isa 5:20 and Ath. Or. 1 1.

87 Cf. 1 Cor 2:12-13.

88 Cf John 17:2-3.

358

ARLANS

life” 89 — and although he has the power to give life, he has no wish to
confuse what is right. < As > he has come for one sovereignty, one God-
head, one truth, one concord, one Glory, to secure men’s salvation and
understanding, he also asks of the Father before his disciples. (4) For
which son does not ask his father? And which father does not give to his
son? But what kind of son is different from the nature of his father? And
thus < the > Son, “the only-begotten of a Father, full of grace and truth,” 90
needed no filling, < since he was > not in want of truth but full of grace
and truth. (5) And he who is full both gives and can give; but his will is to
refer all things to the Father.

For the Son glorifies the Father and the Father glorifies the Only-
begotten. “I have glorified thee on the earth,” 91 said the Son to the Father,
and the Father said to the Son, “I have both glorified thee, and will glorify
thee again.” 92 (6) The Godhead can have no dispute, no envy: “Grant them
to have life in themselves.” 93 He who is life, wills to receive life from the
Father and give it to his disciples although he himself is life, so as not to
divide the Divine Unity and thus not put an obstacle in the way of the
Jews — so that the Jews would hear him asking of the Father.

30,1 How does the Son ask the Father, then? As though not having and
so asking? No, but by declaring the oneness of the Trinity, which provides
the gifts perfectly to one who receives them worthily. But to show the
Godhead’s oneness, in another passage he gives [gifts], no longer by ask-
ing for them but by giving his own on his own authority, for he is Well-
spring of Wellspring, 94 and God of God; < for > “He breathed in their faces
and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit.’ ” 95 (2) And in another passage “He
lifted up his hands and said,” "Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” 96

And he has life in himself, to give to whomever he will. “For as the
Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself.” 97 (3) And you
see that [it is] from honor of the Father and for the sake of one unity and
one glory, and so that the disciples will not suppose that the Only-begotten
has come to divert the believers’ minds from the God of the Law and the

89 John 14:6.

90 John 1:14.

91 John 17:4.

92 Cf. John 12:18.

93 Cf. John 5:26; 17:2-3.

94 Perhaps cf. Ath. Or. I ig.

95 John 20:22.

96 Cf. Luke 24:50.

97 Cf. John 5:26.

ARLANS

359

prophets — (4 )[it is] for this reason that, being God and foreknowing of
the malice of men, he addresses these words as to the Father and gives
the Father the glory that cannot be taken away. And so Mani will be con-
founded, who denies the Father; the disciples will learn that the Godhead
is the same in the Old and the New Testaments; the Jews will be put to
shame because the Only-begotten did not come to teach another God but
to reveal his Godhead and that of his heavenly Father. (5) “Grant them to
have life in themselves,” [he says], although he himself was proclaiming
this life. Why, then, would he ask the Father to give them what he himself
was teaching and giving? For he made the life known later on by saying,
“This is life, that they may know thee, the only true God.” 98

31.1 Next, because Christ said, “the only true God,” 99 Arius and his fol-
lowers jump at the verse as though they have found an argument against
the truth. “He said, ‘The only true God.’ You see, then, that only the Father
is true.”

31.2 But let’s ask you Arians ourselves, “What do you mean? Is only the
Father true? But what is the Son? Isn’t the Son true? If the Son isn’t ‘true,’
‘Our faith is vain and our preaching is in vain.’ 100 (3) And in blasphemy
against your own selves you will be found to be likening the Son of < God >
to the unspeakable, infamous idols — you to whom the prophets said, as
though to persons who are suffering a delusion, < ‘Solomon says, The wor-
ship of the unspeakable idols is the beginning of all evil.’* > 101 And each of
the prophets recalled this text, < like Jeremiah* > who said, < Woe unto
them that follow after idols,’* > 102 and, ‘Our fathers made for themselves
false gods, and their high places became false.’ 103 (4) The Only-begotten
too is condemned in your eyes, and you thus hold a disgusting opinion of
‘him who redeemed you’ 104 — if, indeed, he did redeem you. For since you
deny your Savior who redeemed you, you cannot be of his fold.”

For if God is not true, he should not be worshiped; and if he is created,
he is not God. And if he is not to be worshiped, how can he be called God?
Stop it, you who < are making a god* > of one more natural object, (5) who
are conducting Babylonian < worship* >, who have set up Nebuchadnez-

98 Cf. John 17:3 and Ath. Or. Ill 26.

99 Cf. Ath. Or. I 6.

100 1 Cor. 15:14.

101 Holl suggests that some scriptural citations, including Wisd. Sol. 14:27, have fallen
out here.

102 Cfjer. 9:14.

103 Cf. Jer. 16:19 and 3:32.

104 Gal 3:13.

ARLANS

360

zar’s image and idol! You who are blowing this renowned trumpet to unite
< the worshipers > 105 < against > the Son of God* >; who, with your wrong
words, are bringing the peoples to disaster with music, cymbals and psal-
tery, preparing them to serve an image rather than God and truth. And
who else is as true as the Son of God? (6) “For who shall be likened to the
Lord among the sons of God?” 106 says the scripture, and, “None other shall
be reckoned in comparison with him.” 107 And what does he say [next]?
To show you that he means the Son, he describes him next and says, “He
hath found out every way of understanding, and given it < to Jacob his
servant and Israel whom he loveth. > (7) And thereafter he appeared on
earth and consorted with men.” 108 How can this not have been said truly
of him? < And how can the Son not be true God* > when he says, “I am
the truth?” 109

32,1 But you will ask me, “Why did the only-begotten true God say, ‘that
they may know thee, the only true God?” [I reply], “to discourage polythe-
ism, to prevent division of the life-giving knowledge? 110 If the Father is
the only true God, then the Son is true and truly begotten of the Father!
(2) For it was ‘to honor the Father’ 111 and reveal him alone as ‘true God,’
that the Son made it known that he is ‘truly begotten of the Father.’ ”

And how was this to be made known? (3) Just look at the texts here! It
says here that the Father is the only “true God,” but in the Gospel accord-
ing to John it says, “He was the true light. 112 And which “true light” was
this but the Only-begotten? And again, the scriptures say of God, “God is
light,” 113 and they didn’t say, “God is true light.” On the other hand, they
said of God’s only-begotten Son that the Only-begotten is "true light.”

32,4 It said, “true God,” of the Father, and not that God is “true light.”
But of the Son, it said, “God,” and didn’t add “true” to “The Son is God.”
And where it said, “God is light,” it didn’t add, “true light.” Then what
should we say of the Father? We < shall confess* > that God is “true light,”
and not make the Godhead defective. (5) And because “true light” is not
[said of God] in the scripture, should we < also > sinfully say that God

105 Holl: 7ipoc7x:uvouvTcov; MSS: 7roXepouvTcov.

106 Ps 88:7.

107 Bar 3:36.

108 Bar 3:37-38.

109 John 14:6.

110 Cf. Ath. Or. C. Ar. I 6.

111 Cf. John 8:49.

112 John 1:9.

113 1 John 1:5.

ARLANS

361

is not true light? And since scripture says that the Son is God, and that
he was God with the true Father — (‘The Word was God’; 114 and it didn’t
say that the Word became God, but that he was God) — the equivalence
[of the Father and the Son] will be shown by the two phrases. From the
Father’s being “true God” and the Son’s being “true light” the equality of
their rank will be evident; and from the Son’s being “God” and the Father’s
being “light” the equivalence of their glory will be made plain. (6) And
there will be no difference, nor can anyone contradict the truth, but the
Father is true God, and the Only-begotten is true God.

33.1 But I am obliged to speak further here, about the Holy Spirit, or, if
I leave anything out, I may give the enemy, who want < to contradict >, a
chance to hold their < wicked beliefs* >. For it is the same with the Holy
Spirit, as the Lord himself testifies by saying “the Spirit of truth” and “the
Spirit of the Father,” 115 but the apostle by saying “Spirit of Christ.” (2) Thus,
being the Spirit of the Father [and] the Spirit of the Son, the Holy Spirit is
the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, just as God is true God, just as he is
true light. For there is one Trinity, one glory, one Godhead, one Lordship.
(3) The Father is a father, the Son is a son, the Holy Spirit is a holy spirit.
The Trinity is not an identity, not separate from its own unity, not wanting
in perfection, not strange to its own identity, but is one Perfection, three
Perfects, one Godhead.

33,4 And the sword of the opposition has fallen [from its hand]. Indeed,
scripture says, “< Their blows became a weapon > of babes.” 116 Even if
infants want to take weapons they lack the strength, and cannot do any-
thing with their hands. Even though infants are roused to anger they kill
and do harm to themselves rather [than anyone else], since they cannot
make an armed attack on others. Similarly these people have sent their
imposture to war with themselves, but will bring no evil on the sons of
the truth.

34.1 But once more I shall go on to other texts which they have thought
of. To begin with, the falsehood they use in order to deceive the simple
and innocent is amazing. As the serpent deceived Eve in her innocence, so
they, if they wish to win their allegiance, first < approach* > those who do
not wish to go by their creed with much flattery, and with liberal expen-
diture, attention, and both promises and threats, such as “You’re opposing

114 John 1:1.

115 For both, see John 15:26.

116 Ps 63:8.

362

ARLANS

the imperial decrees and the wrath of the emperor Valens.” (2) And what
do they say [next]? “Well, what is it that we’re saying? It’s the faith [itself],
only you’re [too] proud [to admit it]!”

All right, let’s see whether this is the faith. They say, “We confess that
the Son is begotten of the Father, and do not deny it. (3) But,” they say,
“we must also confess that he is a creature and a product of creation.”

But nothing could be more pathetic. Nothing created is like anything
begotten, and nothing begotten is like anything created, especially in the
case of that one, pure and perfect essence. (4) 117 For all things have been
created by God, but only God’s Son has been begotten, and only the Holy
Spirit proceeded from the Father and received of the Son. All other things
are created beings, and neither proceeded from the Father nor received
of the Son, but received of the Son’s fullness, as the scripture says, “By the
Word of God were all things established, and all the host of them by the
Spirit of his mouth.” 118

34,5 “But we must confess the creaturehood as well,” says Arius, “since
scripture said ‘creature’ in a figurative sense, and ‘offspring’ is meant figu-
ratively. For even if we say, ‘offspring,’ we shall not mean an offspring like
any other.”

Well then, they are deceiving the innocent by saying, “offspring,” and
the offspring isn’t real. (6) “But we also confess Christ’s creaturehood,”
they say. “For Christ is also called door, way, pillar, cloud, rock, lamb, 119
lamb, 120 stream, calf, lion, well-spring, wisdom, Word, Son, angel, Christ,
Savior, Lord, man, Son of Man, cornerstone, sun, prophet, bread, king,
building, husbandman, shepherd, vine, and all sorts of things like these.
In the same way,” they say, “we also use ‘creature’ in an accommodated
sense of the word. For we are bound to confess it.”

35, r Such wicked speculation, and such cunning! May the Lord allow
no son of the truth to be brought by such dissimulation to accept “crea-
ture” as the Son of God’s title for such reasons, and make that confession.
Let them tell us what the use of this is, and we will grant them the conclu-
sion of their reasonings. (2) For all those things are ways of speaking and
do not impair the Son’s divinity, make him defective in comparison with
the Father, or < alter him* > from his essential nature. Even if he should
be called “door,” it is because we enter by him; if road, it is because we go

117 We insert a paragraph number missing in Holl.

118 Cf. Ps 32:6.

119 apviov.

120

ARLANS

363

by him; if “pillar,” because he is the support of the truth. Even if “cloud,”
this is because he overshadowed the children of Israel, if “fire,” because of
the brightness of the fire which gave them light in the wilderness. Even if
he should be called “manna,” this is because they denied that he was the
bread from heaven; if "bread,” because we are strengthened by him.

35.3 Even if “angel,” this is because he is an angel of a great counsel.
The word, “angel,” is a synonym. Rahab received the “angels,” and yet the
men who had been sent there were not angels, but the persons who brought
the report 121 of the place. And so, because he reported the Father’s will
to men, the Only-begotten is an “angel of a great counsel,” who reports
the great counsel in the world.

35.4 Even if he should be called “stone,” the “stone” is not inanimate;
this is a way of speaking, because he has become a stumbling block to
the Jews, but a foundation of salvation to us. And he is called "corner-
stone” because he unites the Old and the New Testaments, circumcision
and uncircumcision, as one body. (5) But he is called "lamb” because of
his harmlessness, and because the sin of humankind has been done away
by his offering to the Father as a lamb for the slaughter; for the Impassible
came to suffer for our salvation. And whatever else in these usages is an
aid to human salvation is applied to him by the sacred scripture in some
accommodated sense.

36,1 Now what good can “creature” do, or what use is it to our salva-
tion and to the glory and perfect divinity of the incarnate divine Word?
How does calling him “creature” help us? What can a creature do for crea-
tures? How does a creature benefit creatures? (2) Why did God create
< a Son > and allow < him > to be worshiped as God, when he says, “Thou
shalt not make to thyself any likeness, neither on earth nor in heaven,
and thou shalt not worship it?” 122 Why did he create a Son for himself
and order that he be worshiped, particularly when the apostle says, “And
they served the creature rather than the creator, and were made fools.” 123
It is foolish to treat a creature as God and break the first commandment,
which says, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve.” 124 (3) And thus God’s holy church worships, not a creature
but a begotten Son, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, with
the Holy Spirit.

121 oi dvaYyeikavTei;.

122 Exod 20:47.

123 Rom 1:25; 22.

124 Deut 6:13; Matt 4:10.

364

ARLANS

36.4 “Oh, yes!” says Arius. “Unless I say he is a creature, I attribute dimi-
nution to the Father. For the creature does not diminish the creator, but
by the nature of things the begotten shrinks its begetter, or broadens or
lessens or cuts it, or does it some such injury.” 125

36.5 It is most foolish of those who think such things to imagine God-
head in their likeness — and of those who attribute their frailties to God,
since God is wholly impassible, both in begetting and in creating. We are
creatures, and as we suffer when we beget, we tire when we create. And if
the Father suffers in begetting, then he also tires in creating.

36.6 But how can one speak of suffering in connection with God, and of
his tiring if he creates? He does not tire, never think it! The scripture says,
“He shall not weary.” 126 "God is spirit” 127 and begot the Son spiritual<ly>,
without beginning and not in time, “God of God, light of light, very God
of very God, begotten, not made.” 128

37,1 But I shall pass this text by too, and once more devote my atten-
tion to others which they repeat and bandy about in wrong senses, and
which I have mentioned earlier. For again, they confusedly misinterpret
this one: “Receive your high priest, who is faithful to him that made him.” 129
(2) In the first place they reject this Epistle, I mean the Epistle to the
Hebrews, remove it bodily from the Apostle and say that it is not his. But
because of their malady they < turn > the text to their advantage, as I said,
take it in a wrong sense, and covertly introduce the Son’s creaturehood,
supposedly by means of the words, “faithful to him that made him.” 130

37,3 But someone with sense might ask them when our Lord adopted
the title of “high priest,” and they will be at a loss because they have no
answer. (4) Christ never adopted these names before his incarnation —
stone, sheep led to the slaughter, man and Son of Man, eagle, lamb and
all the rest that are applied to him after his coming in the flesh. Thus he
is called “high priest” because of the declaration the Law made of him,
“A prophet shall the Lord raise unto you, of your brethren.” 131 (5) The text
thus plainly explains “prophet,” “high priest,” and “of them” [as titles given]
after his sojourn on earth, and it can be seen at a glance how, once again,

125 Cf. Ath. Or. C. Ar. 1 15; 21.

126 Isa 40:28. Cf. Ath. Nic. 7.

127 John 4:24.

128 Creed of Nicaea, as given, for example, at Ath. Jov. 3.

129 Heb 3:1-2. Cf Ath. Sent. Dion. 10-11.

130 Heb 3:2.

131 Deut 18:15.

ARLANS

365

God’s unconquerable power and foreknowledge foretold and certified all
this by its wondrous light, to the “stopping of every mouth” 132 that rebels
against the truth. (6) For he says in the same passage, “Every high priest
taken from among men is ordained for men to offer gifts and sacrifices,
being able to bear with [their infirmities]. For he hath need <to offer >
for his own sins. But he that had no sin offered himself to the Father.” 133
(7) And "of men” is said because of the earthly sojourn, but “not of men”
< and > “that hath no sin” are said because of the divinity. And of his divin-
ity he says, “though he were a son”; but of his humanity, “He learned by
the things he suffered.” 134

384 And you see that all of Christ’s titles are simple and have nothing
complicated in them. “High priest faithful to him that made him" here
describes neither the making of his body here nor of his human nature,
nor is it speaking of creation at all, but of the bestowal of his rank after
his incarnation, like the text, “He gave him a name which is above every
name.” 135 (2) And this was not done of old in the divine nature, but < in >
his current advent, since the human nature he took from Mary received
the name above every name, the title “Son of God” in addition to the title
of “Divine Word.” (3) And again, for this reason he has said here, through
the apostle himself, “We see Jesus, who for a little was made lower than
the angels crowned with glory and honor,” 136 so that the Master and Maker
of the angels would appear lower than they; so that he who inspires the
angels with dread and fear and, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, made
the angels from nothing, would be called “lower,” and it would be plainly
evident that he is not speaking of his Godhead here, but of his flesh.

38,4 For the suffering of death was not counted as the Word’s before
he took flesh, but after his incarnation, with the same Word being passible
and impassible — impassible in Godhead but suffering in his manhood,
just as both titles apply to the one [person] — “Son of Man” to the same
person, and “Son of God” to the same. For Christ is called the “Son” in
both alike.

39, r What did God “make” him, then? From all that has been said the
trouble-makers should learn that nothing in this text is relevant to the

132 Rom 3:19 (2 Cor 10:5).

133 Heb 5:1; 3; 8:3; 9:14.

134 Heb 2:9.

135 Phil 2:9.

136 Heb 2:9.

366

ARLANS

Godhead but to the human nature. And “made him,” does not refer to the
making or creating of him, but to his rank after the advent.

39,2 If someone asks a king about his son, and says, “What is he to
you?” the king will tell him, “He is my son.”

“Is he your legitimate or your illegitimate son?” The king will say, “He
is my legitimate son.”

“Then what did you make him?”

“I made him king.” Plainly, the son’s rank is no different from his
father’s. (3) And because he has said, “I made him king,” this surely does
not mean that the king is saying, “I created him.” In saying, “I made him,”
he has certainly not denied the begetting of him — which he had acknowl-
edged — but has made that plain; “I made him,” however, was a statement
of his rank. Thus, by those who wish < to obtain > salvation, the Son is
unambiguously believed to be the Son of the Father, and is worshiped.

39,4 But “was made high priest” is said because he offered himself in
his body to the Father for mankind, himself the priest, himself the victim;
as high priest for all creation he offered himself spiritually and gloriously
in his body itself and "sat down at the Father’s right hand,” 137 after “being
made an high priest forever” 138 and “passing through the heavens” 139 once
and for all. The same holy apostle testifies to this of him in the lines that
follow. (5) And once again their ostensible discussion of sacred scripture,
which they use as their excuse, has proved a failure, for scripture is life-
giving; nothing in it offers an obstacle to the faithful or makes for the
downfall of blasphemy against the Word.

40,1 Then they have mentioned another passage, when John was stand-
ing in the wilderness, saw him coming and said, “This is he of whom I said
unto you, a man cometh after me that was made 140 before me, for he was
before me.” 141 (2) And first, as though they were half drowsy, they mis-
understand the expressions themselves and say, “How could this apply
to the human nature, when he was not conceived in Mary’s womb before
the conception of John? Instead, as the evangelist says ‘In the sixth month
the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of Galilee, to a virgin espoused to a
man whose name was Joseph. And he came in unto her and said, Hail,

137 Heb 10:12.

138 Heb 7:3.

139 Heb 9:14.

140 yeyovsv.

141 Cf. John 1:29-30.

ARLANS

367

thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee,’ 142 and the rest that
follows. (3) When the virgin was troubled at his greeting he said to her,
‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a son, and shalt call
his name Jesus. And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth hath conceived a son
in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren.’ 143
And you see,” they say, “that John was already there six months before the
annunciation to Mary. (4) How can ‘He was made 144 before me’ apply to
Christ’s human nature?”

Can any innocent soul whose mind is not clear and firmly made up,
hear that without being upset? (5) For <truly>, 145 for those who bring their
troubles on themselves, the sacred scriptures’ cogent, innocent, life-giving
teachings appear to do more harm then [good] although the texts are
always illumined in the Holy Spirit. (6) What has been omitted to make
the text convincing? See here, it says “This” — to indicate something vis-
ible and show it to the onlookers — “This is he of whom I said unto you
that he cometh after me.” And who is coming but a “man?” But no one
with sense would suppose that our Lord is a mere man — only the sects we
have already indicated, the Cerinthians, Merinthians and Ebionites.

40,7 But together with knowing him as “man” it is surely true that the
true believers know him with certainty as Lord as John testifies, “That
which we have heard from the beginning,” 146 meaning him who is from
the beginning — the invisible divine Word, of whom we have heard in the
sacred scriptures, who is proclaimed in the prophets, who is hymned in
heaven. (8) Thus the intent of < the line >, “We have heard with our ears
from the beginning and have seen with our eyes,” is for the word, "hear,”
coming first, to confess that he is God from the beginning, but for the
word “see” to show that he is the man of whom John the Baptist said,
“After me cometh a man.” 147 And “our hands have handled” is meant to
show that he is God from on high and indicate that he is visible man,
born of Mary and raised whole from the dead without losing the sacred
vessel and perfect human nature he had taken; it is meant instead, from
the handling of his side and the nail-prints, to give unshakeable testimony
to all three, (g) So please understand here too that “This is he of whom

142 Luke 1:26-28.

143 Luke 1:30-31; 36.

144 EySVETO.

145 Holl: dk») 0 w?; MSS: ksysi.

146 1 John 1:1.

John 1:30.

147

368

ARLANS

I said unto you that a man cometh after me” 148 is meant to show the
human nature, and “He was before me” to show the Godhead “because he
was before me.” For “He was in the world,” says the holy Gospel, “and the
world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” 149

41.1 But if he was in the world before the creation and begetting of John
he had arrived in the world before him — not meaning creation or making,
but in the sense in which people use the same word to say, "I arrived 150 in
Jerusalem, arrived in Babylon, arrived in Ethiopia, arrived in Alexandria” —
not meaning creation here, but presence and arrival. (2) What does “I
arrived in Babylon” or some other place mean but, “I came [there]?” “He
arrived [here] before me” shows the continual presence on earth of the
Word, and “He was before me” shows that the Godhead is eternal. “Com-
ing after me” does, however, indicate his conception after John’s.

And so “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness” 151 means a cry
to draw people’s attention. (3) When people call they give a loud shout
first without any words, to call from a distance to the people who need to
hear something from them. And once the people hear the shout [which
is] only [a shout], and pay attention and get ready to hear, then finally the
shouter pronounces whatever words he wanted to say. (4) And thus John
was a voice in the wilderness to draw people’s attention. For John himself
was not the Word; the Word on whose account the preparatory shout was
heard came after him. And this is why he says, “the voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” 152 (5) The voice prepares
the ways, but the Lord sets foot on the ways which have been prepared.
And a voice speaks < to > the ear; but when the ear is receptive, the word
is implanted in the ears of its receivers. Thus Arius and his followers will
never perceive God’s truth although it enlightens the hearts of the faithful
at all times to prevent their turning away from the salvation which is to be
found in the Word, the true, uncreated and unoriginate Son of God.

42.1 But again, as I go ahead and come to each topic in turn, I shall
not omit any point I have previously proposed for solution but take up
the thread again. 153 Once more the Arians offer another excuse, St. Peter’s
words in Acts, “Be it known unto you, all ye house of Israel, that God hath

148 John 1:30.

149 John 1:23.

150 eyEvopjv.

151 John 1:23.

152 John 1:23.

153 I.e., the Arian arguments in the order of their appearance at 14,1-15,4.

ARLANS

369

made this Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ.” 154 (2) And again
they say, “Here we find ‘made’ in scripture”; and they do not see that the
phrase, "this Jesus” — for the phrase is self-explanatory — means the Lord’s
human nature. < The meaning* > is clear from “this Jesus whom ye cruci-
fied." This is < plainly* > the flesh which they crucified, for < it is clear
that > they crucified flesh. (3) And thus the Lord says in the Gospel, “But
now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have
heard of my Father,” 155 < declaring himself man* > but not separating his
Godhead from his manhood. (4) For neither was Christ’s Godhead sepa-
rate from his manhood when he was about to suffer, nor when he suffered
was the human nature abandoned by the Word. But no more had the
impassible Word previously suffered; he suffered < only > in the suffering
flesh. For the same name truly applies to both natures and is given to the
divine nature and to the human. The human nature of the Word himself
is Christ, and yet Christ is the Lord in the human nature itself. (5) But the
suffering is in the flesh, as Peter said, “Christ suffered for us in flesh" —
to show the divine nature’s impassibility — and again, “dying in the flesh,
brought to life in the Spirit.” 156

Thus Peter said “this Jesus whom ye crucified” to show that the sacred
human nature was not abandoned by the impassible and uncreated Word,
but was united with the uncreated Word on high. (6) And this is why he
said, “God hath made Lord and Christ” 157 the thing that was conceived
by Mary, the thing that had been united with Godhead. For Mary is not
divine by nature, and for this reason he adds “made.” And so, when Mary
asked him, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” the angel Gabriel
said, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and the power of the
highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that which shall be born
shall be called holy, the Son of God.” 158

42,7 But when he said, “that which shall be born," he showed unques-
tionably that the divine Word is indubitably a Son, not created, not made.
(8) And as to the human nature which was born of Mary, he showed,
by adding “that which is born < shall > also < be called holy, the Son of
God >,” that God had made < even the thing that was born > Christ and
Lord. And as everything about the other passages has been fully dealt with

154 Acts 2:36. Cf. Ath. C. Apol. 2.9.

155 John 8:40.

156 1 Pet 3:18.

157 Acts 2:36.

158 Luke i:34-35-

370

ARLANS

and presents no difficulty, here too everything about his human nature had
been dealt with, and for those who are attending to their salvation there
is no bypath. (9) For the Word is a living Word from a living Father — the
Father’s Son, not his creature. But everything in the human nature has
been dealt with, so that no one may suppose that he is an apparition, or
that his flesh is co-essential with his Godhead on high, but everyone [will
realize] that the human nature is united in one impassibility, especially
after his resurrection from the dead. For scripture says, “He dieth no more,
death hath no more dominion over him.” 159 (10) There is one Lord, one
Christ, one King, seated at the Father’s right hand; that which is physical
and spiritual is one union, one spiritual Godhead, both natures radiant
and glorious. (11) But since I feel that the passage has been sufficiently
expounded I shall pass it by; and let me take up the discussion by < going
on* > to < warn > my hearers against the other parts of their < foolish-
ness > which they have invented for the overthrow of their hearers. 160

43,1 For again, they say, “If he is of the Father’s essence why does he
not know the hour and the day, but by his own admission acknowledges
to the disciples that he does not know the things the Father knows and
says, ‘Of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, not even the angels
in heaven or the Son, but the Father only.’ 161 (2) If the Father knows,” they
say, “and he doesn’t know, how can the Father’s and the Son’s Godhead be
the same, when the Son doesn’t know what the Father does?”

43,3 But not knowing their human frailty, they seize, to their own
harm, on everything that the Only-begotten, in his divine wisdom, teaches
mystically for the assurance of the truest knowledge — as horrid serpents,
when caught by a crafty hunter, take the bait to their own destruction.
They do not know that falsehood will never stand, while the truth always
keeps its own sons straight and confounds falsehood. (4) Those who har-
bor this evil suspicion of Christ from the first must tell us which is by
nature greater and more important to know — God the Lord of all and the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or the day which is brought to its dawning
by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the hour when it dawns.
But if they are asked that question, the truth itself will surely oblige them
to say that the Father is greater, as indeed he is.

159 Rom 6:9.

160 Holl: -rcapaTponriv, which construes which the word Holl restores, gwpoXoylas; MSS:
avaTpo7ir]v.

161 Matt 24:36; cf. Ath. Or. Ill C. Ar. 26.

ARLANS

371

43.5 Now if the Son says, “Neither knoweth any man the Father save
the Son, and no man knoweth the Son save the Father,” 162 when he knows
the greater thing, the Father, how can he not know the lesser thing? But
these words are divine and spoken by the Holy Spirit, and are unknow-
able by those who have not received the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit.
(6) For such are the Arians with their wavering spirit and feeble intellect,
and they slip into hurtful deviations even in their minor ones.

44.1 For the Lord’s own words will step out to meet them, “Be ye ready,
< let > your loins < be > girded about and let there be lamps in your hands,
and be ye as good servants, awaiting their Master. For like a thief in the
night, so will the day come.” 163 And the holy apostle says, “Ye are not
children of the night but of the day, lest the day should come upon you as
a thief.” 164 (2) If, then, the children of the day are not hidden by the dark-
ness, but are ready because "Their Master cometh in a day they know not
and at an hour they await not,” 165 then, because of his brilliant being and
his Godhead, will not < He who > gives them being be different from his
servants, the sons of the day? Or, like those who do not know the day and
are unprepared, will he be caught in ignorance and subject to deficiency?
(3) Who but the < in >sane could suppose these things of the Lord, that
he will be like his subjects and disciples — or like those who, from their
unpreparedness and ignorance, are inferior to these? That is just silly.

44.4 Now if these things are not possible, but the explanation, when
compared with it, turns out to contradict the saying, we need to see
what explanation we can find that will leave both saying and explanation
uncontradicted and prevent our deviating from the truth. For the Lord
cannot lie, and can give no expositions for our salvation in vain.

44.5 Thus the Father knows [the day], the Son knows, and the Holy
Spirit knows. For nothing in the Father is different from the Son, nor is
anything in the Son different from the Spirit. In every Sect, when I needed
to, I have shown with authentic proofs that the Trinity is one Godhead
and has no internal differences but is all perfection — three Perfects, one
glory and one sovereignty.

45.1 But you will ask me, “Why did he say this, then?” And I have
already given an explanation of this elsewhere. 166 But nothing need keep

162 Matt 11:27.

163 Cf. Matt 24:44; Luke 12:35; 1 Thes 5:2.

164 1 Thes 5:4.

165 Matt 24:44; 50.

166 Cf. Anc. 89,2.

372

ARLANS

me from adding to the same things and telling the same truths; “To me
it is not burdensome, but it will be a safeguard” 167 for the readers and
refutatory for the opposition. The reason for this is as follows. (2) Christ
has made incidental mention, in the same sentence, of three ranks: the
Father, himself, and the angels in heaven. And he has attributed knowing
to the Father, implying not only acquaintance and knowledge but every-
thing that is always indubitably controlled, brought about and made by
the Father and the Son. (3) Indeed the Father knows the day — knows it,
has fashioned and made it, and < at the same time > judged, as he said
in the Gospel according to John, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath
given all judgment to the Son 168 — in giving judgment he has judged; in
judging, then, he knew [the day]; knowing, he is aware of when it will
come. (4) For “He that believeth not on the Son is judged already” 169 — not
in the sense that the judgment is past, but that what will happen then is
already made plain, just as any particular thing follows from this [or that
cause]. For scripture is aware of more than one sort of “knowledge”; and in
my frequent returns to the main point I have never ceased to clarify and
explain each subject with the similes and examples which have already
been discussed.

46,1 So let’s take < up > the discussion again < too >, from the begin-
ning, and speak about these things. What do you mean, people? Did or
didn’t Adam know Eve his wife even before their disobedience and trans-
gression? And you can’t contradict the truth. (2) Even though you prefer
not to deal fairly with the sense of this, you will be exposed, for scripture
says, “They were naked and were not ashamed.” 170 For if they were naked
and not blind 171 they saw and knew each other. For neither can you deny
this and not admit that they could see; "Eve saw that the tree was good for
food and goodly to look upon.” 172 Thus they saw and knew.

And by knowing and seeing they recognized each other. (3) But it was
much later when scripture said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife” It speaks
of the first knowledge and sight in the sense of knowledge gained by
seeing and intellection, but in the case of the second acquaintance and
knowledge it is describing knowledge by experience. (4) Thus the sacred

167 Cf. Phil 3:1.

168 John 5:22.

169 John 3:18.

170 Gen. 2:25; cf. Clem. Horn. 111.42.

171 Holl: < sauxou? eiSov xai rjSeiaav >.

172 Gen 3:6.

ARLANS

373

scripture says the same of David in his old age, “And David was old and
could not keep warm. And his servants said, Let a virgin be sought for the
king. And there was found Abishag the Shunamite.” 173 And it says, “And
she warmed him, and he slept by her side, and David knew her not.” 174
(5) How could he not know her when she was close to his body and slept
beside him? But here scripture is describing, not knowledge by intellec-
tion but knowledge by experience.

46.6 Indeed it is the same with Jacob. When he was herding with Leah
and Rachel for seven years he knew them. But when the scripture speaks
of their lawful conjugal intercourse it says, “He knew Leah his wife.” 175 The
first knowing was by intellection and sight, but the second acquaintance
and knowing was by experience and activity.

46.7 And likewise in the sacred scripture “The Lord knoweth them
that are his” 176 doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know those who aren’t his,
but refers to the activity of the Lord’s assistance. And [so with] “Depart
from me, all ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you.” 177 Did he have
no intellectual knowledge of them? But because they were not worthy of
him he withholds his personal knowledge from them. And elsewhere he
says, (8) “You have I known of all nations.” 178 [If we take this literally], all
the nations, and the entire human population, have been left out of his
knowledge. On the contrary, aren’t the hairs of each one’s head known
< by > him — of those who serve, and those who disobey him? And “God
knoweth the ways on the right hand.” 179 Doesn’t he know the ways on
the left? And how much of this sort can be said of the different kinds of
knowledge!

47,1 And so with God’s only-begotten Son. Since < he says >, “The Father
hath given judgment to the Son,” 180 he attributed the knowledge of per-
sonal acquaintance and experience to the Father. For “No one knoweth the
day save the Father” 181 is meant in two ways. He knows when it comes —
indeed, the day and hour come by his authority — and he knows it < by

173 3 Kms 1:2-3.

174 3 Kms 1:4.

175 Cf. Gen 29:23.

176 2 Tim 2:19.

177 Luke 13:27.

178 Deut 14:2.

179 Prov 4:27a.

180 John 5:22.

181 Matt 24:36.

374

ARLANS

acting >. For there has already been activity on his part, the delegation of
the judgment to the Only-begotten.

47,2 And thus the same knowledge is in the only-begotten Son of God,
since he is God and no different from the Father. For he himself knows the
day, he brings it himself, carries it on, brings it to an end, and judges, and
without him it cannot come. (3) But he does not know it through activ-
ity yet, that is, he has not yet judged. The impious are still impious, the
unrighteous covet, fornicators, adulterers and idolaters commit iniquity,
the devil is at work, sects arise, and imposture does its work until God’s
only-begotten Son brings the day itself, and gives each his just due. And

< then* > he will know it < through activity* >, that is, [know] it through
deed and power. (4) And in the Father knowledge is complete in two
ways, but in the Son it is there by intellection and is not unknown, but has
not yet been completed by activity, that is, he has not yet judged.

47,5 But knowledge has been withheld from the holy angels in two
ways — < in that they do not yet know [the day] > intellectually, and

< also > that they do not yet know it through activity, that is, through the
fulfillment of their function. For they have not yet been directed to go out,
gather the impious in bundles like tares and prepare them for burning.
(6) And you see, beloved and servants of God, that all these people who
welcome shocking notions because of some preconception of their own,
have gone to war in vain, and directed against themselves their various
attempts to blaspheme the Son of God as lesser and inferior.

48,1 But now that we have also explained this sufficiently let us once
again, by the power of God, devote our attention to their other argu-
ments. Although these great heretics who are game for anything do not
have beliefs like the Manichaeans or like many other sects, still, even
though they hold that Christ’s fleshliness is real, they hold even this inad-
equately and not in the fullest sense. (2) They confess that the Savior truly
had flesh; but when they learn from the Gospel itself that he tired from
his journey, was hungry and thirsty, and went to sleep and got up, they
put all this together and apply it to his Godhead as though they wanted
to separate his Godhead from the Father’s essence for reasons like the
following. 182 (3) For they say, “If he is of the Father, but the Father does
not tire or thirst or hunger as the sacred scripture says, “He shall not weary
not hunger nor thirst nor sleep, and of his counsel there is no finding

182 Cf. Ath. Sent. Dion. 27.1-2.

ARLANS

375

out” 183 — (4) if these things are characteristic of the Son, they say, “then
he is different from the Father’s essence and nature.” And they themselves
will admit that before the incarnation these things did not apply to the
Only-begotten. However, when they are forced to admit this and come
to the things he did in his human nature, and hear that naturally he did
these things because he had taken a body, yielding to them for his legiti-
mate needs like a mule yielding to a chariot because he had taken flesh
in reality and not appearance, then they claim that this was not due to
his flesh alone.

49,1 For in fact [flesh] cannot of itself thirst or grow tired. But those
who have left the road and turned off on paths that lead in the opposite
direction do not know that the Son of God did not simply take flesh at
his coming, but also took a soul, a mind and everything human except
for sin, and was < truly begotten >, though not of a man’s seed, but of
the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. (2) < But if* > they will not admit
< themselves* > that he has taken a soul, < they will be made fools of* >
by this arguent against them, which is the simplest of all the replies to
their nonsense. 184 (3) The true God — < who > says of himself, “I am the
truth” — himself acknowledges that “My soul is troubled,” 185 “My soul is
exceeding sorrowful,” 186 and “I have power to lay down my soul and to
take it” 187 — [this last] to show that, as God, he has this power, < but that
by his incarnation he has truly become man* >. (4) For no [mere] man
could say this; no one has the power to lay his soul down and take it. But
when Christ speaks of a soul he shows that he has become man in reality,
not appearance.

49,5 And again, [he says], “1 am the good shepherd who layeth down
his soul for the sheep.” 188 And to show the reality of these things he said
to his Father on the cross, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit”; 189 and
when the soldiers came, the scripture says, “They found that he had
already given up the ghost.” 190 (6) And again, “Crying with a loud voice” he
said, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, that is, My God, my God, why hast thou

183 Isa 40:28.

184 John 14:6.

185 John 12:27.

186 Matt 26:38.

187 John 10:18.

188 John 10:11.

189 Luke 23:46.

190 Cf. John 19:33.

376

ARLANS

forsaken me?” 191 — I have also explained this way of speaking earlier —
and, as the Gospel says, “gave up the ghost.” (7) For when the truth says,
“He gave up the ghost,” “into thy hands,” “My soul is troubled,” and all the
rest, who would be < so > foolish as to believe such a bunch of half blind
dreamers and ignore the actual credible statements of the divine Word?

50,1 And then, like pirates mutilating sound bodies, hunting out of
each scripture things which have been said well and rightly, they appeal
to some expression which the scripture often uses figuratively. And they
like to cite in a literal sense something that has been said figuratively,
but interpret a literal and unequivocal statement as an allegory of some-
thing else. (2) They jump right up and cite some words from the holy
Isaiah which were spoken in the person of the Father, “Behold, my servant
shall understand, my beloved in whom I am well pleased, whom my
soul loveth,” 192 as though this is the Father speaking; for so indeed he is.
(3) “Well, now,” they say, “has the Father taken a soul too?” But if we say,
“Of course not! What can this be but a figurative expression?” they reply,
“Then what was said by the Son is figurative too.” (4) And they think they
can get an occasion against the truth in this way, but it won’t be given
them. The truth stands unadorned on its own feet, undefeated and with
no need for decoration.

50,5 For let’s see what both of these mean. If the Father became cor-
poreal, assumed flesh and said these words, he really took a soul. But if
the Father did not assume flesh and still said, “my soul,” this is a figure of
speech referring to God, to safeguard the [Son’s] legitimacy and show the
legitimacy of the Father’s relationship to the Son. (6) But one cannot say
the same of the Son in this respect. The Father did not take flesh, while
the Son assumed flesh. The Father did not become man, but the Son did.

50,7 Something similar may be said of the Father. As he says, “My soul
hath loved him,” 193 in this passage, so he says, “I have found David the son
of Jesse, a man after mine heart,” 194 “My heart is far from them.” 195 (8) If
we take what is said of the soul figuratively because “My soul hath loved”
is a figure of speech, then what is said of the heart is also figurative. And
clearly, this must be evident to any sensible person, (g) Therefore, if the
Father speaks figuratively of a soul and a heart, which he did not take —

191 Matt 27:46.

192 Isa 42:1.

193 Isa 42:1.

194 Cf. 1 Kms 13:14.

195 Isa 29:13.

ARLANS

377

for he did not assume flesh — things of this sort are applied to the Father
in a figurative sense. But the same is not to be supposed of the Son; for
the Son took flesh, and the entire human constitution.

51.1 This will serve as a reply to anyone who speaks figuratively of
the Son with regard to < the > humanity, since there is no < allegorical >
expression even* > in a part of a word, because Christ truly took human
nature. (2) For if what is said of the Son’s soul is allegory and we must
take the language about it figuratively, then the same has been said of his
heart. And finally we will admit that everything about him is appearance
and not truth. (3) < Therefore >, according to Arius’ contentious argument,
the Word cannot have received a heart either when he came — or a liver,
flesh, entrails, bones, or anything like that. In the last analysis all of these
are allegories and meant figuratively — or else he just received a blob for
a body, without any insides. (4) In that case, how could he eat and drink?
Forget it! For if the Father speaks of a soul and a heart but in his case
the meaning is allegorical and the expression figurative, then < the Arians
should also take the heart* > figuratively in the Son’s case, since they deny
that the Son has taken a soul.

51,5 But if, when pressed, they cannot deny Christ’s heart because they
admit that the Lord received the whole bodily frame, therefore, given
their < admission > that there are two different “hearts,” the one admitted
to be real and the other allegorical, in the case of Christ’s “soul” the word
is accurate, and not allegorical or figurative. (6) However, since Christ’s
human nature is complete in every respect — in body, soul, mind, heart,
and everything human except sin — he naturally could do what men do,
and yet be entirely complete in Godhead, with impassibility. 196 (7) His
Godhead cannot be less glorious than the Father’s perfection, but he will
be made complete by his human nature and his thirst, hunger, drinking,
eating, sleeping, discouragement, while his Godhead is impassible. And
again their argument about this has failed, since Christ became flesh while
being God.

52.1 But if they say, “If he was of the Father why did he become flesh?”
our reply would be, “What do you say about the angels?” For it is plain to
everyone that Arians admit the angels were made by the Son. (2) Indeed,
they also blaspheme the Holy Spirit by venturing to say that he was cre-
ated by the Son, although he is uncreate, proceeding from the Father and
receiving of the Son. (3) Hence, if they dare to say this of the Holy Spirit,

196 Holl ev cbra0Eia, MSS ev crcoTvjptqt.

378

ARLANS

how much more will they be unable to deny in the case of the angels,
who are created beings, that they have received their existence from the
Only-begotten?

If, then, the angels he created were created spiritual but are his cre-
ation in spite of that, and, as his workmanship, are infinitely far below his
essence and yet they have not taken flesh — what do you say about that?
(4) Are they greater than the Son even though created by him? Or the
Holy Spirit too? Why didn’t he come to flesh, put on flesh and become
man — either the Holy Spirit of God or one of the holy angels? (5) The Son
surely did not assume flesh because of an inferiority to the Father. In that
case the angels would surely have assumed flesh, or even the Spirit. But
since the Son, who is the Father’s wisdom, power and Word, had made
all things himself with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he assumed flesh
(6) to show that the reason for Adam’s transgression or disobedience was
not that Adam was a creature or that God had made sin, but Adam’s own
choice, so that [the Son] could carry his righteous judgment through as
Isaiah said, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he
not quench, till he shall carry the judgment through to victory, and in his
name shall the gentiles hope” — 197 as David said of him,” “Thou shalt be
victorious when thou art judged.” 198

52,7 For he was judged in order to silence his opponents by judging
justly; for no one will be able to oppose his righteous judgment. For he wore
the body and kept it undefiled. For it was certainly not at the instance of
the creator, who is not responsible for Adam’s sin, that that which was in
man, that is, in Adam, from the beginning came to the point of becoming
sin with the result that Adam sinned. The creator allowed Adam freedom
of choice and each person is responsible for his own sin. (8) And thus,
< although he was > not responsible [for sin], the divine Word, the creator,
who with his Father and the Holy Spirit created man, the immortal and
undefiled Word, became man of his own good pleasure, by some ineffable
mystery of wisdom. And in his extreme loving kindness, under no compul-
sion but of his own free will, he assumed all his creature’s characteristics
for his creature’s sake to “condemn sin in the flesh,” 199 annul the curse
on the cross, utterly destroy destruction in the grave, and by descending
to hades with soul and Godhead make void the covenant with hades and

197 Isa 42:3-4.

198 Ps 50:6.

199 Rom 8:3.

ARLANS

379

break “the sting of death.” 200 (g) But the ungrateful turn good things com-
pletely to bad and no longer thank the kind, perfect, good Son of a good
Father for the things for which < one should > thank him. Instead they
show ingratitude by attributing frailties to his Godhead, things they are
not able to prove, since the truth is evident to everyone.

53,1 And now that these have been expounded I shall go on in turn to
other arguments in succession. For they quote the text in the Gospel, “The
Father who sent me is greater than I,” 201 with a bad interpretation. In the
first place it says, “The Father who sent me,” not, “the Father who created
me.” (2) For all the sacred scriptures show his true sonship to the Father.
They say, “The Father begot me,” 202 “I came forth from the Father and am
come,” 203 “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” 204 and, “the Father
who sent me.” 205 And nowhere have they said, “the Father who created
me,” or, “the Father who made me.”

53,3 And why do they keep heaping up things that are not so? “The
Father who sent me is greater than I” — what could be more proper? More
cogent? More necessary? More fitting? Who but his true Son, the One
begotten of him, is the proper person to glorify the Father? (4) For the
Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father. And the Son glori-
fies the Father both to be an example 206 to us, and < for the sake > of his
glorification of the Father as one union and glory [with himself], teaching
us that his honor is the Father’s honor, as he has said, “He that honoreth
not the Son as he honoreth the Father, the wrath of God abideth upon
him.” 207

53,5 But in what way do Arians think that he is “greater?” In bulk? Time?
Height? Age? Worth? Which of these is in God, for us to conceive of? Time
does not apply to the Godhead, so that < the > Son who is begotten of the
Father but not in time, might be considered inferior. Nor does the Godhead
allow for advancement, or the Son might achieve the Father’s greatness
by advancing to it. (6) For if the Son of God is called the Son of God as
the result of advancement, then he [once] had many equals and advanced
by being called higher in rank, but was [once] lower than someone who

200 1 Cor 15:56.

201 John 4:34 and 14:28.

202 Cf. Ps 109:3.

203 John 16:28.

204 John 14:10.

205 John 4:34.

206 John 4:34 and 14:28.

207 Cf. John 5:23; John 3:36.

380

ARLANS

outranked him. (7) But the scripture says, “Who shall be likened unto the
Lord among the sons of God?” 208 since all things are termed sons colloqui-
ally, but he alone is Son by nature, not grace — for “He hath found out every
path of understanding, and none shall be declared his equal.” 209

But what do Arians say? “The Father surpasses the Son in elevation.”
(8) Where is the Godhead located? Or is it bounded by space so that
“bigger” might be shown by circumference? < Forget it*>, “God is spirit!” 210
And their heretical invention is a complete failure. Let us pass this by too,
beloved, and go on to the rest of their arguments.

54,1 For they say that the sender is not like the sent, but that sender
and sent differ in power because the one sends, while the other is sent.
And if the meaning of the truth were what they say, the whole subject
of our knowledge could not be traced to one unity of truth, power and
Godhead. (2) For if two were meeting or two were sending, the Son would
no longer be a son, but a brother — who had another brother, no longer a
father. 211 But if they were related by identity or adoption, or if one were
to send himself, or if the two sent together or arrived together, they would
show that there are two Godheads and not one unity. (3) But here there
is a Sender and a Sent, showing that there is one Source 212 of all good
things, the Father; but next after the Source comes One who — to corre-
spond with his name of Son and Word, and not with any other — is one
Source springing from a Source, the Son come forth, ever with the Father
but begotten < without beginning and not in time as the scripture says* >,
“For with thee is the source of life.” 213 (4) And to show the same of the
Holy Spirit < it adds >, “In thy light shall we see light,” showing that the
Father is light, the Son is the Father’s light, and the Holy Spirit is light
and a Source springing from a Source, [that is], from the Father and the
Only-begotten — the Holy Spirit. "For out of his belly shall flow rivers of
water springing up unto eternal life; but,” says the Gospel, "he said this of
the Holy Spirit.” 214

54,5 And again, to teach his disciples his co-essentiality with the
Father, he says, “If any man open to me, I and my Father will come in

208 Ps 88:7.

209 Bar 3:36.

210 John 4:24.

211 Perhaps cf. Ath. Or. I C. Ar. 14.

212 Perhaps cf. Ath. Or. 1 14.

213 Ps 35:10.

214 John 7:38; (4:14); 7:39.

ARLANS

381

and make our abode with him.” 215 And [here] he no longer said, “I shall
be sent by my Father,” but, “I and my Father will < make our abode > with
him,” with the Son knockimg and the Father enterimg with him, so that
it is everlasting, and neither is the Father separated from the Son nor the
Son separated from his Father. (6) And so he says in another passage,
“I am the way, and by me shall they go in unto the Father.” 216 And lest
it be thought that < he > is less than the Father because they go in to the
Father by him, he says, “No man can come unto me unless my heavenly
Father draw him.” 217 (7) Thus the Father brings him to the Son and the
Son brings him to the Father, but brings him in the I loly Spirit. The Trinity
is forever eternal, one unity of Godhead, three Perfects, one Godhead. And
the Arians’ argument has failed.

55.1 But again, they say, “Why did Christ tell his disciples, 'I go unto
my Father and your Father, and unto my God and your God’? 218 If he
acknowledges him as his God, how can he be his equal or legitimately
begotten of him as Son?” — showing that they are entirely ignorant of God,
and in no way “illumined by the light of the Gospel.” 219

55.2 Always, and in every generation, one who has examined and
investigated will know the meaning of the truth of the perfect knowledge
of our Savior and of his equality with the Father. But these people itch
from being wrapped up in Jewish thinking, and are annoyed with the Son
of God just as the Jews said, “For no evil deed do we stone thee, but that
thou, being a man, callest thyself Son of God, making thyself equal with
God.” 220 (3) They are annoyed too because they have gotten into the same
state as the Jews 221 and Pharisees, and will not call the Son equal to the
Sire who begot him.

55,4 For observe the accuracy of the scriptures! The sacred scripture
never used this expression before the incarnation. The Father says “Let us
make man” 222 to the Son, calling the Son his fellow creator and showing
that he is his own Son and equal. (5) And the Son never said, “my God
and your God,” < before the incarnation, but* >, “And Adam heard the

215 Rev 3:20.

216 Cf. John 14:23.

217 John 6:44.

218 John 20:17.

219 1 Cor 15:34; 2 Cor 4:4.

220 John 10:33.

221 Cf. Ath. Or. I 8.

222 Gen 1:26.

382

ARLANS

voice of God walking in the garden, 223 and < "God said to Noah >, Make to
thyself an ark of acacia wood,” 224 and, “The Lord rained from the Lord,” 225
and “The Lord said unto Moses, I am the God of Abraham and the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob”; 226 and David says, “The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.” 227 And the Lord never said, “my God
and your God.”

55,6 But when he had taken our body, “appeared on earth and con-
sorted with men,” 228 and become one of us, then he said “my God and
your God, and my Father and your Father” to his disciples, whom it was
his duty to be like in all respects except sin: “my Father” by nature in the
Godhead, and “your Father” by grace because of me, in the adoption. “My
God” because I have taken your flesh, and “your God” by nature and in
truth. (7) And thus everything is crystal clear, and nothing in the sacred
scripture is contradictory or has any taint of death, as the Arians pretend
in concocting their wicked arguments. But again, I think this has been
sufficiently explained, and shall next go on to the rest.

56,1 For again, they say that the Holy Spirit is the creature of a creature
because of, “By the Son all things were made,” 229 as the scripture says-
stupidly seizing on certain lines, not reading the text as it is worded but,
with wrong suppositions and apart from the text misinterpreting, in terms
of their wrong supposition, something that has been correctly said. (2) For
the divine Gospel did not say this of the Holy Spirit. It said of all created
things that anything which is created was made through the Word and by
the Word. If you read further, the line, “All things were made through him,
and without him was not one thing made,” includes the words, “that was
made,” to make it clear that all [created] things were made by him, and
not a single thing without him.

56,3 Then again it says, “In him was life.” 230 For here too the sequence
of St. John’s [expressions] must be made complete as he goes on with
his confessions that non-existent things < have been made > 231 in existent
ones. For “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

223 Gen 3:8.

224 Gen 6:13-14.

225 Gen 19:24.

226 Exod 3:6.

227 Ps 109:1.

228 Bar 3:38.

229 Cf. John 1:3.

230 John 1:4.

231 Holl YEY£vv](iEva, MSS 7TE7iXy]pcofiEvoi;.

ARLANS

383

and the Word was God.” 232 (4) Since [he says] “was,” and was,” and “In
him was life,” 233 and “that was the true light,” 234 and “He was in the
world” 235 and all < the rest* >, the blessed John, by the Holy Spirit’s inspi-
ration, is making it plain with this “was” that “All that was made, was made
through him.” 236 But the Maker of all the things that were made is prior
to them all.

56,5 However, the scripture says that all things were made through
him but did not say what the things that were made were. For there was
never any supposition of wickedness, so that no one could suppose things
that were not true and blaspheme God’s changeless and unalterable Holy
Spirit. (6) It is on their account that the Lord says, “If any man say a word
against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. But if any man say aught
against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the
world to come.” 237 For the whole of their argument is ridiculous.

56,7 One might, however, answer them in terms of their blasphemous
supposition and say, “You hotshot sophists and word-twisters who want
to count God’s Holy Spirit as a creature on account of, ‘All things were
made through him,’ because of ‘all things,’ although the Holy Spirit is
never counted in with ‘all things!’ (8) You should suppose, then, in terms
of your blasphemous supposition — if, indeed, there is anyone else who is
worse than you — that the Father too was made through the Son.” For the
line which says that all things were made through him is comprehensive,
(g) But if it is blasphemous to think any such thing of the Father, and fool-
ish, the like applies to those who suspect it of the Holy Spirit, who belongs
with the Father and the Son.

56,10 For if he were were a thing that is made he would not be reck-
oned in with the uncreated Father and the uncreated Son. But because
he is uncreated he is so reckoned; the scripture said, “Go baptize in the
Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 238 And how
can the Spirit be created when it is testified of him that “He proceeded
from the Father” 239 and “received of me,” 240 and through him man’s full

232 John 1:1.

233 John 1:4.

234 John 1:9.

235 John 1:10.

236 Cf. John 1:3.

237 Matt 12:32.

238 Matt 28:19.

239 John 15:26.

240 John 16:15.

384

ARLANS

salvation, and everything required for the human nature, was made com-
plete. (11) For scripture says of the Lord, “God anointed him with the Holy
Spirit.” 241 But the Father would not have anointed Christ’s human nature,
which had been united in one Godhead with the divine Word, with a
creature. However, since the Trinity is one, three Perfects, one Godhead,
this needed to be done for the Son in the dispensation of the incarnation,
so that the Trinity, completely glorified in all things, would be observed to
be < one >. I have cited no [mere] one or two texts against all the sects in
my discussions of the Spirit, to prove that he is the Spirit of God, glorified
with the Father and the Son, uncreated, changeless and perfect. And, in
its turn, the argument against themselves that the trouble-makers < have
invented > about him has proved a failure.

57,1 But again, let’s devote our attention to their other arguments. For
they say in turn, though they do not have a sound understanding of the
text, that the Savior himself said, “Why callest thou me good? There is
one good, God,” 242 and thereby separated himself from the essence and
subsistence of the Father.

But this whole thing is foolish. (2) If they do not think that the One who
has done so much for us is good, who else is < good? But what > could
be worse than this, that the One who gave his life for the sheep; who
went willingly to the passion although he was the impassible God; who
secured the forgiveness of sins for us; who worked cures in all Israel;
who, of his own goodness, brought such a numerous people, in good-
ness, to the Father — that the Promoter of goodness and Lord of peace,
the Father’s good word begotten on high of the good Father, the Giver of
food to all flesh, the Author of all goodness for men and all his creatures,
is not considered good by the Arians!

57,3 And since they have managed to forget it, they do not know that
he threw the questioner’s word back at him in order to humble the over-
weening insolence in him. A scribal type was boasting that he had exactly
fulfilled the requirements of the Law. And to parade his own righteousness
and goodness he said, “Good Master, what [more could] I do to inherit
eternal life?” (4) And since he thought of himself as < endowed > with
such great righteousness, the Lord, wishing to ascribe all goodness to God
so that no fleshly being would indulge in vanity, said, “Why callest thou
me good? None is good save God.” By saying such a thing when he was

241 Acts 10:38.

242 Mark 10:18.

ARLANS

385

what he was and as great as he was, he intended to humble the arrogance
of the speaker with his supposed righteousness, and expose what was in
his heart, for with his lips he called him a good teacher, but he did not
abide by his good teaching.

57,5 And that he is good he teaches us himself by saying, “Many good
works have I done among you; for which of them do ye stone me?” 243 To
whom is this not clear and plain as day, particularly as many of his crea-
tures are, and are called good, as the sacred scripture says? (6) See here,
the sacred text tells of many good things. It says, “Saul, the son of Kish,
of the tribe of Benjamin, was a good man, and from the shoulders and
upward higher than all the people.” 244

And “Samuel” was “good with the Lord and men” 245 And “The last word
was better than the beginning.” 246 And, “Open thy good treasure, the
heavenly.” 247 (7) But since these are creatures, and are shown by himself
and his creatures to be good, how can it not be indisputably good to con-
fess that the author of their being is good? But < not > to prolong the dis-
cussion of this — I have spoken extensively of it everywhere — I shall once
again go on to the next, and give the explanation of each expression.

58,1 But these people who will try anything cite some other texts to
sow the suspicion that there are defects in their Redeemer — if, indeed,
they have been redeemed. For when the mother of the sons of Zebedee
approached Jesus and begged that the one son should sit on his right and
the other on his left when he came in his kingdom, he told them, “Ye
know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I shall drink of?
And they said, Yea. We are able. And he said to them, Ye shall drink of my
cup, but to sit on my right hand or on my left is not mine to give, but is
for them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” 248 (2) "Do you see,” they
say, “how he has no authority independent of the Father’s, who has the
authority to give it to anyone he chooses?”

And who in his right mind would think such a thing? If the Son does
not have authority, who does? “For,” he says, “the Father giveth life to the
dead, and thus he hath granted the Son to give life to whom he will”; 249

243 John 10:32.

244 1 Kms 9:2.

245 1 Kms 2:27.

246 Eccles 7:9.

247 Deut 28:12.

248 Matt 20:22-23.

249 John 5:21.

386

ARLANS

and, “All things have been delivered unto me of my Father.” 250 (3) Who
could have any further doubt? But his sacred, wise saying is meant to
show that nothing is awarded from respect of persons, but in accord with
merit. For to grant is the Lord’s prerogative, but he grants to each accord-
ing to his deserts. Each who has done something right receives < from
the Lord > in accordance with his labor; and not mere giving is his sole
prerogative, but giving to one who has made himself worthy.

58,4 For I venture to say that giving [as such] is not the Lord’s preroga-
tive although he has the power, but he does not wish [simply] to give.
Nor is it the Holy Spirit’s although the Holy Spirit has the power to give,
as the scripture says, “To one is given wisdom by the Spirit, to another
divers kinds of tongues by the same Spirit, to another the interpretation
of tongues, to another power, to another teaching, but it is one Spirit that
divideth to every man as he will.” 251 And it didn’t say, "as he is directed,”
but, “as he will.” (5) And “The Son giveth life to whom he will,” 252 and
“The Father calleth whom he will to the Son.” 253 And again, neither the
Father and the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, calls, gives, provides or awards
from respect of persons, but as each person renders himself worthy; this
is the meaning of, “It is not mine to give, but if you toil it will be prepared
for you by my Father.” But at the End, for “I am the life.” 254
And I shall go right on to the others.

5g,i They say, “Why do you say that he is of the Father’s perfect God-
head? See here, the apostle says of him that ‘God hath raised him from
the dead.’ 255 If he needs God’s help to raise him from the dead, then there
is one person who raises him by his power; but the other person, the one
who is raised by the power of the One who is able to do this, is inferior.”

59,2 And how long must I tire myself out with the silly ideas of the
people who give themselves headaches? Who raised Lazarus? Who raised
the widow’s son at Nain? Who said, “Qumi talitha, Get up, child,” to the
daughter of the ruler of the synagogue? On whose name did the apostles
call, and the dead were raised?

I suppose the apostles < said this to show* > that all this had been done
at the Father’s good pleasure, by the will of the Son and with the consent

250 Matt 11:27.

251 Cf. 1 Cor 12:8; 10; 11.

252 John 5:21.

253 Cf. John 6:44.

254 John 11:25.

255 Rom 4:24.

ARLANS

387

of the Holy Spirit, because the apostles were in a dispute with Jews who
thought that they were preaching apostasy from the God of the Law, and
because they had received 256 from the Holy Spirit the knowledge that
sects would set Christ in opposition to the will of the Father. (4) But this
is not said to show any defect or weakness, or any difference between the
divine Word’s essence and the Father’s. There are no differences. See, in
the first instance, how the angel describes him when he asks Mary and
the others, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” 257 You see, he who
was alive had risen in his Godhead and flesh; he was not with the dead.
And what does the angel say to them? “He is risen. He is not here.” 258 He
didn’t say, “God has raised him and is he not here?” but to show the power
of the Savior he said that he had risen even living.

5g,5 And again, he himself told his disciples before his passion,
“Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to
be crucified, and the third day he shall rise again.” 259 ( 6) And he didn’t
say, “< God > will raise him.” But he was plainly showing beforehand the
control [over resurrection] of his power by saying, “1 have power to lay
my soul down, and power to take it.” 260 (7) But since he had the power,
why couldn’t he raise himself? When the apostle wrote, “God raised him
from the dead,” 261 he said it to show that nothing in the economy of sal-
vation has taken place without the Father’s will. For the apostle himself
says in another passage, “Even though he died from weakness, he lives by
power.” 262

5g,8 If 1 could only pick the brains of these people who know all about
the scripture, [and find] which weakness the Only-begotten had — [the
Only-begotten] by whom the heaven has been spread out; by whom the
sun was lit; (g) by whom the stars shone; by whom all things have been
made from nothing. Which weakness does the apostle mean? Isn’t it the
weakness the Word assumed when he came in our flesh, putting it on so
as to bear our weakness? As the prophet’s oracle about him says, “He took
our weaknesses and bare our illnesses.” 263 He who is life and the impas-
sible God died because of our weakness in the flesh which we had made

256 Holl 7rpot7<5e^aa0o!i> to yvcoarov, MS rrpoi; to yvcoarov.

257 Luke 24:5.

258 Luke 24:6.

259 Matt 20:18-19.

260 John 10:18.

261 1 Cor 15:15; Rom 4:24.

262 Cf. 2 Cor 13:4.

263 Isa 53:4.

388

ARLANS

weaker [yet], but he lives by power. “For the Word is living and active
and sharper than any two-edged sword.” 264 (10) Thus he died from weak-
ness and lives by the power of his Godhead; but he lives in our flesh in
which he accepted the passion. And it was because of this dispensation
that the apostle said, “God raised him from the dead,” 265 to give token of
the Father’s good pleasure.

60.1 They cite still another text from the Gospel according to Luke, one
which is marvelous, choice, and in every way most useful. Which text?
When the Lord, by his own will, was about to enter upon the passion,
taking the disciples into the mount at that time he “went apart from them
about a stone’s cast, and went and prayed and said, “Father, if it be pos-
sible, let this cup pass from me that I drink it not. Nevertheless, not what
I will, but what thou wilt.” 266

60.2 And first, once more these people pretend and say, “Do you see
how he speaks coaxingly and shows a will that is distinguished from the
Father’s by saying, ‘Not what I will, but what thou wilt?’ How can it be
the same essence,” they ask, “when there is one will in him, but another
in the Father?”

And they are ignorant of the entire meaning of this. For this is why
the apostle said, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge
of God!” 267 (3) And how could Christ be speaking of a will of his own
beside the Father’s will when he himself tells his disciples, “My soul is
troubled, and what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour?’ ” 268 as
though he were speaking in advance about the text [in question], and
using the words, “What shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ ” in a
way that was equivocal? He means, "Should I say [such a thing as] this?
For for this cause came I unto this hour.” 269 (4) He came, not unwillingly
but willingly. For earlier he says, “I have a cup to drink, and how eager
I am to drink it! And I have a baptism to be baptized with, and what will
I if I were already baptized!” 270 If he is willing and eager, then, and says
that he has come for this purpose, how can he be showing that he has
one will, and the Father has another? (5) And, being kindly and willing to

264 Heb 4:12.

265 1 Cor 15:15; Rom 4:24.

266 Luke 22:41-42.

267 Rom 11:33.

268 John 12:27.

269 John 4:27.

270 Matt 20:22; Luke 12:50.

ARLANS

389

spare Abraham’s seed, since he would be betrayed by Israel he was put-
ting in a word for the people.

However, it was the Father’s will that his provision be executed in this
way by the children of Israel, although they were accessory to their own
betrayal of the Son and not compelled to it by God; and the Son’s will was
not different from the Father’s. (6) But it was essential that he show this
even here to ascribe the whole of the divine unity to the Father, leaving
no division between the one unity and human nature.

61,1 And Arius adds next that “ ‘being in agony while he prayed,’ ” < as >
we find in the Gospel according to Luke, and “ ‘He sweat, and his sweat
was as it were drops of blood falling to the ground. And there appeared
an angel of the Lord strengthening him.’ ” 271 (2) Those nit-pickers jump
up at once as though they had found an opening against an enemy, and
add, “Do you see that he even needed the strength of angels? An angel
strengthened him, for he was in agony.”

And they have no idea that if he did not have all these things, including
“Not my will, but thine,” the human nature of Christ would have been an
illusion; and if Christ had not been in agony and sweat had not poured
from his body, there would be some sense in the theory of the unreality of
the human nature that Manichaeans and Marcionites yap about, < since
Christ would be an apparition > and not absolutely real. (3) But < he did >
all these things to make our salvation sure < because > he assumed every-
thing < that is ours >, and as concessions said certain things, in truth, not
deceit, that reflected human frailty. < For example >, [he said] “not my
will,” to show the reality of his flesh, confound those who say he has no
human mind, and frustrate the people who deny that he has flesh.

61,4 For every divine word, standing firm amid the sons of darkness,
confounds the darkness but enlightens the sons of the truth. See how
much helpful material there is in this saying. No sweat comes from bodi-
less beings. In this way he showed that his flesh was real and not an appa-
rition. < And > without a soul and a mind there can be no agony of a flesh
that is united to the Godhead. By experiencing agony he showed that he
had soul, body and mind at once, which is why he could show agony.
(5) And again, by saying, “not my will, but thine,” he revealed a mind truly
human though without sin.

For his Godhead is always in the Father, the Father is in the Son, and
the Son is in the Holy Spirit, perfectly possessing all things, and the Son’s

271 Luke 22:44; 43-

390

ARLANS

intent is no different from the Father’s nor the Father’s from the Son’s,
or the Holy Spirit’s from the Father’s and the Son’s. (6) If the Son desires
what the Father does not will, he will indeed be a mere man as you say
and, from inferiority, < subject > to the will of the Father. But this is not
the case, never think it! By speaking of things that are reflective of human
frailty he shows the reality of his incarnation and the perfection of his
human nature, so that he will be our salvation in every way and we will
not perceive one thing in place of another and be deprived of the truth.

62,1 But as to his being seen to be strengthened by angels, what could
be more proper than this? What more necessary? See, we have found the
application of the passage in the great Song written by Moses, “Let my
utterance be awaited as the rain,” 272 and shortly afterwards, “Let all the
sons of God worship him, and all the angels of God strengthen him” 273 —
(2) not so that the angels may give him strength. He did not need the
strengthening of the angels. They “strengthen” him in the sense of giv-
ing him the due acknowledgment of his strength. (3) Indeed, for all our
weakness we too have often blessed God, often strengthened God — not
because God needs our blessing, but we acknowledge the power of his
blessing. And we say, giving the full particulars, “Thine is the power, thine
the might, thine the honor, thine the glory, thine the blessing, thine the
strength, thine the power.” (4) Not that we provide God with strength by
saying “Thine is the might, thine the power, thine the blessing,” not that
we have given God power, have blessed God. But by corroboration and
confirmation we have confessed the power ( 3 uvap.iv) of God and ascribed
the strength (iaxuv) to God.

62,5 Thus the angel too was amazed at that time, and astonished at
the abundance of his Master’s loving kindness because, although he was
God, and was worshiped in heaven with the Father, and served by his
own angels, he submitted to such a < depth* > [of humiliation] as to come
willingly by his own desire and assume flesh — (6) and not only this, but
< also > submitted to suffering, even to consignment to the cross, for
his own creation, the human race, “tasting death, even the death of the
cross,” 274 so that humankind could win the trophy against death through

272 Deut 32:2.

273 Deut 32:43.

274 Cf. Phil 2:8.

ARLANS

391

him, “destroy him that had the power of death, even the devil,” 275 and
“triumph over every rule and authority.” 276

62.7 And so, in amazement and awe, to glorify and praise his Master
as he stood in such an arena and with such remarkable deeds, the angel
said to him, “Thine is the worship, thine the might, thine the power, thine
the strength,” in fulfillment of the words that Moses had written, “Let all
God’s angels give him strength.” 277

62.8 And you see, servants of Christ and sons of God’s holy church and
orthodox faith, that there is nothing obscure or knotty in the sacred scrip-
ture; everything has been written marvelously and marvelously fulfilled
for our salvation. However, in their hostility to God’s only-begotten Son
and the Holy Spirit, Arians, like enemies, think up all sorts of plans and
subtleties, (g) But far be it from us to rely on human subtleties. We must
keep our minds sound to glorify our Master and not conceive of any defect
in him. For if the One who came to save all things has any defect, how can
creation be saved from its own defects?

63,1 Again, in their search for some text or other against the Savior, this
new crop of Jews who are springing up again — for they are votaries of the
Jewish opinion and no different from Jews except merely in name — they
seize, like adversaries, on something else “to entangle him in his talk,” 278
as the Gospel has said. (2) “On the cross,” they say, he said, ‘Eli, Eli, lema
sabachthani, that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ ” And
“You see him piteously begging and wailing,” they say, “and saying, Why
hast thou forsaken me?’ ” 279 (3) And those whose minds are torpid from
the poison of Arius’ madness, and who have no knowledge of God, do not
know that all the human frailties in the Lord are to be confessed [as resid-
ing] in his true human nature.

63,4 In the first place, they do not realize that they are jumping from
one thing to another in their thinking about him and have no fixed posi-
tion. How can they, when they are not sound in mind? For they will some-
times call the Savior himself Lord, Christ, before all ages, Master of angels
and archangels, through whom all things were made — principalities and
authorities, angels and archangels, the heavens and all things, the earth,
all humanity and everything on earth, the sea and all that is in it. (5) How

275 Heb 2:14.

276 Col 2:15.

277 Deut 32:43.

278 Matt 22:15.

279 Matt 27:46.

392

ARLANS

foolish of them to say such glorious things of him and not realize that

< He who > in his Godhead < is > before the ages cannot say such a thing
as, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 280 here in the person
of his Godhead — He by whom heaven and earth were made, and angels
and archangels, and in a word, all things visible and invisible.

63,6 When was the Son forsaken by the Father, and when was the Son
not in the Father and the Father not in the Son? For he came to earth
as the Son and the divine Word, and yet he touched heaven, and all his
enemies were filled with his glory. And he was in Mary and was made
man, and yet filled all things by his power. (7) How could such a person,
and One of such greatness, say piteously, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, that
is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in his divine nature,
though it was he himself who said, “I shall come again and shall not leave
you desolate, but I shall come unto you.” 281 And he says again in another
passage, “Verily I say unto you, All ye shall be offended because of me
this night, and ye shall all leave me alone, and yet I am not alone, but
the Father who begot me is with me.” 282 8) And again, “I go, and I shall
send unto you the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceedeth from the
Father and receiveth of me.” 283 And again, in another passage, he says,
“I knock, and if any man open to me, we shall come unto him, I and my
Father, and make our abode with him.” 284 This is as much as to say that he
is not forsaken by the Father, but that the Father is always with the Son,
just as the Holy Spirit is always with the Father and the Son.

64,1 “Well then,” they say, “what did he mean when he said, ‘My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ ” But who cannot see that the words
are uttered in the person of his human nature, reflecting human frailty?
(2) His human nature [said this], though not by itself. (He never spoke
from a separate divine nature and a separate human nature, as though

< he were > sometimes the one and sometimes the other. He spoke with
his manhood united with his Godhead as one holiness and therefore pos-
sessed of perfect knowledge in it.) Appropriately for the manhood which
had been united with God and joined to one divine nature, but which now
saw its Godhead, with its soul, impelled to leave its holy body, it < pro-
nounced the words > in the person of the Ford-man, that is, in the person

280 M a tt 27:46.

281 John 16:7; 14:18.

282 Cf. Matt 26:31; John 16:32.

283 Cf. John 16:7; 14; 15:26.

284 Rev 3:20.

ARLANS

393

of his human nature. (3) For the divine nature was about to accomplish all
that the mystery of the passion involved and descend to the underworld
with his soul, to secure the salvation there of all who had previously fallen
asleep, I mean the holy patriarchs. Thus, when it was so impelled, Christ’s
voice said, in the person of the human nature [speaking] to his divine
nature itself, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 285

65.4 But this had to be, in order to fulfill, through him, the prophe-
cies the sacred scriptures had made of him through his own prophets.
And it was in fulfillment of the words against Hades which are said to
Hades, seemingly by the man, so that though the archon Hades and Death
intended to subdue a man he would unknowingly < seize > the < holy >
Godhead < concealed > in the soul, and Hades himself would be subdued
and death destroyed, fulfilling the saying, “Thou shalt not leave my soul in
Hades, neither shalt thou suffer thine holy one so see corruption.” 286

65.5 For neither did the holy divine Word abandon the soul, nor was
his soul abandoned in Hades. Unceasingly, the holy Trinity provides for
all aspects of so great a mystery — the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
with the Son < become > fleshly but the Father incorporeal, and the Son,
although unchangeable, incarnate by his own good pleasure and < made >
flesh by the will of the incorporeal Holy Spirit. But all these provisions
were made by the holy Trinity for the salvation of humankind.

66, i 287 And so, in turn, he says in another passage, “Why hast thou for-
saken me?” and here he says, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” 288
For < his > body needed to spend the three days in the grave in order to
fulfill the sayings, “And I was free among the dead” 289 and “They cast me,
the beloved, out like a loathed carcass.” 290 This was also in fulfillment
of “Thou shalt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption,” 291 (to show
his holiness through his body), and < “Thou shalt not leave my soul in
Hades” >, (to show that his soul was not left in hades either). (2) For the
divine Word was in it throughout his sojourn in Hades, in fulfillment of
the apostle’s saying, “ft was impossible for him to be holden of hades.” 292

285 Matt 27:46.

286 Ps 15:10.

287 The chapter numbering in Holl-Lietzmann does not include a chapter 65.

288 Heb 13:5.

289 Ps 87:5.

290 This citation is not identifiable.

291 Ps 15:10.

292 Acts 2:24.

394

ARLANS

66,3 And why does scripture say, “impossible,” except that Death and
Hades was eager to detain a soul but that, because of his Godhead, it was
impossible for his soul to be detained? But if his soul could not be detained
because of his Godhead, how could, “My God, my God, why hast thou for-
saken me?” 293 be said in the person of his Godhead? (4) This saying was
given in the person of the manhood, in terms of human frailty, to teach us
that Christ was incarnate truly, and not in seeming or appearance.

66.5 But what arose from the earth, other than the body that had fallen
asleep? “He is risen,” says the scripture, “he is not here.” 294 And what was
it that had arisen except a body? It was a body, then, that was in the grave,
but the soul had departed with the divine Word. (6) And again, Christ
accomplished his perfect resurrection all together, in the same Godhead,
the same soul, the same holy body, and then united his whole self in one
spiritual union — one union of Godhead, one provision, one fullness. In
the ninety-second Psalm it says, “The Lord hath reigned, he hath put on
comeliness,” 295 meaning the divine Word’s entry from the heavens into
the world having put on comeliness, that is, with the flesh that was born
of a Virgin.

66.6 For since he seemed of little account to his unbelieving beholders
comeliness was ascribed to him to show his power which, through the
seeming weakness of the flesh, overcame the arbiter < of death. For he
arose* > after abolishing < the curse* > of sin — that is, death — and after,
in a comely fashion, accomplishing the entire provision for our salvation,
after doing away with corruption and the curse, annulling the writ against
us and the covenant with Hades, and making all the provisions for the sal-
vation of humankind. (7) For directly after it says, “The Lord hath reigned,
he hath put on comeliness,” the scripture makes a further addition and
repeats it, saying, “The Lord hath put on, and hath been girded about, with
strength.” 296 This is to show that his first garment came from Mary, but
that his further clothing the second time came from the resurrection of
the dead; (8) for as the sacred scripture has said, he is “the firstborn from
the dead.” 297 This is why he adds a further assurance by this second don-
ning of a garment and says, “The Lord hath put on, and hath been girded
about, with strength.”

293 Matt 27:46.

294 Mark 16:6.

295 Ps 92:1.

296 Ps 92:1.

297 Col 1:18.

ARLANS

395

67.1 For as a person with his waist belted tightens his garment about
his loins, making his appearance trimmer and bringing the garment close
to his own skin, so Christ “girded on comeliness” for the first time because
of his sojourn here in the flesh. But the second time he “put on strength,”
as the scripture says, by rising from the dead. His manhood is no longer
subject to suffering, no longer subject to scourging, can no longer be cru-
cified, as the apostle said of him, "He is risen, he dieth no more, death
hath no more dominion over him.” 298 (2) This is why it says, “He was
girded” — [that is], by uniting his flesh with one Godhead, a single one-
ness, < one > spirit, the divine and the bodily one as a spiritual whole,
indissoluble. Thus, then, he entered where doors were barred, < proving >
his grossness ethereal and his passibility impassible, for he had suffered
in the flesh while retaining his impassibility. (3) [Even so] after entering
he displayed bones and flesh, the mark of the lance and the marks of the
nails, was felt by Thomas and seen by the disciples. But he entered where
doors were barred to show that, for us men, he had made one spiritual
unity of the whole of his saving work.

67,4 And why do I tire myself with so much talk? To say “the same
things” often “is not grievous to me, but” for my readers < “it is safe.” 299
Therefore* >, since I have often thought of < the same thing* > for your
safety I have put it down as a way of getting through the savage attack of
Arius’ thoughts, words and suppositions.

68.1 And now that I have likewise discussed this expression sufficiently,
let me go on to the rest in order, by fully explaining most of their foolish-
ness that comes to my mind, to show, from a few texts or even more, that
for one who has the Holy Spirit and has received a sober mind from the
Lord, nothing crooked can be suspected anywhere in the sacred scripture,
and no sort of frailty in the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. (2) Everything
has been said, in truth, in the sacred scripture, with entire perfection and
with provision for every need and for what is required in every passage, by
the Lord himself and his holy apostles and prophets whom he has sent.

68,3 For indeed, the Lord made a prophesy of this when he said, “Eli,
Eli, lema sabachthani” in Hebrew. The Lord, come to the cross, was duly
finishing the saying by saying what had been prophesied of him, “Eli, Eli,”
in Hebrew as it had already been written; and [then], in adding the com-
panion phrase he said, “lema sabachthani,” no longer in Hebrew but in

298 Rom 6:9.

299 Phil 3:1.

396

ARLANS

Aramaic, so as to begin as it had been written of him but in going on
change the rest of the line to another language. (4) This too he was doing
to make a good provision. By saying, “Eli, Eli,” he meant to acknowledge
that the words had been spoken of him by the prophet. But by saying
the rest no longer in Hebrew but in Aramaic, he meant to humble < the
pride > of those who boast of Hebrew, and to declare that other languages
too are fit for the fulfillment of the oracles about him. (5) For he was now
to extend the knowledge of himself to all nations, not just the Hebrews,
as this whole series [of expressions] in the twenty-first Psalm 300 indicates
when, in the person of his human nature, it records all the frailty of his
humanity.

68,6 But, come [to the cross], he was completely fulfilling the descrip-
tion himself, just as < every point > in the whole of the psalm, one after
another, corresponds with the humanity of Christ which it is describing,
ft says, “And they parted my garments,” 301 and, “They pierced my hands
and my feet, they stared and looked upon me.” 302 And as many other such
things are said, which cannot possibly apply to his Godhead, but are said
in the flesh — although the Godhead, impassibly and in truth, has made
provision of them all.

6g,r But they leap up again, like mad dogs in the grip of some frenzy
which, because of their frenzy, do not know their master and attack him
first. When we tell them truly that the Lord in the Gospel said of his disci-
ples, “Those whom thou hast given me, Father, 1 have kept in the world,” 303
(2) and again, “Make them to be one in me, as 1 and thou are one,” 304 they
reply, “Can’t you see that in the words, T am in the Father and the Father
in me, and we two are one?’ 305 he is not speaking of equality but of con-
cord? (3) How could the disciples be in him by equality? But they could
be in him by concord.”

And God’s truth refutes them completely at once, since the disciples
could not do this, and it could not be said of them, if the Word had not
come and shared their flesh, and united them in him for adoption as sons.
(4) Thus everywhere in the Song of Songs, he calls his holy church “neigh-
bor,” addresses her with his holy voice of arousal and admonition, and

300 Cf. Ps 21:26-32.

301 Ps 21:19.

302 Ps 21:17; 18.

303 John 17:11-12.

304 John 17:21.

305 John 14:6; 10:30.

ARLANS

397

says, “Rise up and come, my neighbor, my fair one, my dove!” 306 (5) And
do you see how he calls her “neighbor?” But the church could not be
called Christ’s “neighbor” if he had not come from above and drawn near
to her, through the flesh with frailties like hers which he had taken, so as
to gather those who had obediently drawn near him and call the human-
ity which had become near to him his holy and spotless bride.

69,6 And this is why the Word, our Lord the Only-begotten, here prays
the Father that his disciples may be in him, so that, when the disciples
have been sanctified, he may join the kinship with him through the flesh
which has become theirs by the Father’s good pleasure, into a oneness
of good will and adoption and, in the Father’s Firstborn, they may have
“enrollment with the firstborn in heaven.” 307 (7) And lest anyone suppose
that the Son has been changed from his Father’s glory by donning the
flesh, to confirm their faith and knowledge of his truth, so that < no one >
becomes suspicious of his servants and is deprived of his hope, he says,
“that as I and thou are one, so these may be one. (8) For I and thou are
one” 308 — since < he is > God of God, and co-essential [with the Father]
in Godhead.

69.9 And “We are one,” is not indicative of a unit. He did not say,
“I am one,” but, “I and thou.” And “We are one” is said to confound Sabel-
lius and his school, since Sabellius thinks that the Son and the Father are
an identity and the Father and the Holy Spirit likewise. For that is why he
said, “We are one,” and did not say, “I am one.” There are two Perfects, a
Father and a Son, but one because of equality, by their < one > Godhead,
one power and one likeness, (ro) In the Godhead the Father and Son are
one, in the manhood the Son and the disciples are one, brought to one
union of adoption by his deigning to call the disciples to the ineffability
of his lovingkindness. And once again there has been a refutation of those
who in vain think wrongly of their Master.

70,1 But let me pass this text by too and examine the rest. Since they
spend their time on syllogisms and nonsensical reasonings and, although
they are men, try to out-argue God, the sophists, when they discover one
text or another, jump right up. The prophet reproved them by saying,
“Will someone trip God because you can trip me?” 309

306 Cant 2:10.

307 Cf. Heb 12:23.

308 John 17:21; 10:30.

309 Mai 3:8.

398

ARLANS

70.2 Well, what do the great guys have to say now? The same talk-
ing point which I explained earlier they [now] direct at me in the form
of a query, "Did God beget the Son by willing it or without willing it?” 310
I have shown that to God there is no future, (3) but that in him all things
are complete at once. He does not will a thing first before doing it; nor
does he do it without willing it or will a thing in preparation for it, and
his preparation does not require will. (4) Thus with him his Offspring is
always begotten with no beginning in time. It is always with the Father as
an Offspring begotten, and never ceases to be such. Since I have repeated
the argument here, I again make the statement that the Father did not
beget the Son either by willing it or without willing it, but in his nature
which transcends will. For the Son is < the offspring > of a nature beyond
will and above all conception and supposition.

71,1 But these latter day disciples of Aristotle, as I said, invent another
argument similar to this one. For they have imitated Aristotle’s poison
and abandoned the harmlessness and meekness of the Holy Spirit, as the
Lord says, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find
rest for your souls.” 311 (2) But these people have abandoned meekness and
gone in for cleverness instead, taking up Aristotle and the other secular
dialecticians. Contentious as they are, they go after the fruits of dialecti-
cians but know no fruit of righteousness and have not been privileged to
have the gift of the Holy Spirit within them.

71.3 Now here is what they say to us, when we tell them that the Son
Who Is was with the Father Who Is — since the Father said to Moses,
“Thou shalt say unto them, He Who Is hath sent me,” 312 and again, the
Gospel says of the Son that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” 313 If we tell them that He Who Is
was with Him Who Is, they ask us, “Well now, was that which is begotten,
or that which isn’t? If he ‘was,’ why was he begotten? But if he was begot-
ten, how come he ‘was?’ ”

71.4 And < this > is the product of the same foolishness which is pre-
occupied with philosophical questions, has its head in the clouds, “med-
dles with things in the heavens, and does no good.” 314

310 26, 5-6.

311 Matt 11:29.

312 Exod 3:14.

313 John 1:1.

314 Cf. 2 Thes 3:11.

ARLANS

399

For we shall ask them, “What gave you this idea of thinking these
things?” (5) But if they tell us, “Our mind requires us to examine them,”
we for our part shall say, “All right, you people, tell us, are you reasoning
about your own affairs, or about God’s?”

Then they say, “We’re reasoning about God’s on our own initiative, as
rational beings.”

“Well, isn’t God different from your condition, nature and essence?”

“Yes,” they reply.

“Well, if God’s nature is different from yours, then in the first place your
nature can’t comprehend things about God that are incomprehensible.
And in the second, it is an impiety to model God on yourselves, in terms
of your own essence.”

71,6 For in our own case, something that does not exist is begotten
[and then it exists]. For at one time we did not exist, but we were begot-
ten by our fathers, who at one time did not exist either; and so it must be
understood from the beginning, back to Adam. But Adam was made from
the earth, and at one time earth did not exist. But the earth was made
from nothing, since it did not always exist.

But God was always a Father. 315 And whatever he was by nature, so he
has begotten the Son. (7) He begot him as an everlasting [Son] — not as a
brother to him but begotten of him, his like in nature — Lord of Lord, God
of God, very God of very God. And whatever one concludes of the Father,
so he must conclude of the Son; whatever he believes of the Son he must
< also > hold of the Father. (8) For [the Son] says, “He that believeth not
on the Son as he believeth on the Father, and honoreth < not > the Son as
he honoreth the Father, the wrath of God abideth on him,” 316 as we find
in the Gospel.

And their idea of logic has failed in its turn, (g) For God, who is incom-
prehensible, has begotten incomprehensible God, before the ages and
before time. And there is no interval between Son and Father; in perceiv-
ing a Father you simultaneously perceive a Son, and in naming a Son you
simultaneously indicate a Father. For Son is perceived from the Father
and Father is known from a Son. (10) How can there be Son if he has
no Father? And how can there be a Father if he did not beget the Only-
begotten? When can the Father not be called “Father,” or the Son not be
called “Son” — so that people can perceive a Father who was without a

315 Cf. Ath. Or. I C. Ar. 5.

316 Cf. John 3:36; 5:23.

400

ARLANS

son and later, as though he had managed an improvement, begot a son
so that, after the begetting, the Father could be be called Father, with the
perfect God who needs no improvement improving in Godhead?

72,1 Since they want to reject this curative drug and health-giving
antidote, the foundation of the faith of God’s holy church, they make
one more pretense and say, “Why the term, ‘essence?’ Why is the Son
called "co-essential” with the Father? Which scripture has spoken of
co-essentiality? Which apostle said anything about an ‘essence’ of God?”

But they do not know that “being” (vnoaram;) and “essence” mean
the same thing. (2) Christ is Lord in his “being,” and “the brightness of
the Father’s glory and the express image of his being.” 317 Thus he is [the
Father’s] essence — not an extraneous addition (nepiovaia) to it but this
existent thing itself (auxo touto to ov), as Moses said when he spoke to
the children of Israel, “He Who Is hath sent me.” 318 “He Who Is” is that
which is, but that which is is the existent essence. (3) On the other hand,
“co-essential” does not mean “one” but by the "co” indicates two perfect
entities. Yet the two do not differ from each other, nor are they different
from their oneness. But if we have employed an < unscriptural > expres-
sion from motives of piety, to pin the truth down — (there can be no ref-
utation whatever of heresy without the confession of the homoousion.

(4) As a snake hates the smell of pitch, the exhalation of hartshorn, the
odor of lignite and the incense of storax, so do Arius and Sabellius hate
the statement of the true confession of the homoousion.) [But even if
we have employed such an expression] we shall tell them all the same,

(5) “Even though the expression is not in the sacred scriptures — indeed,
it is plainly implied in the Law and by the Apostles and the Prophets, for
‘By two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ 319 — it is still
permissible for us to employ a useful expression for piety’s sake, to safe-
guard the holy faith.”

72,6 “But what do you mean, you people? Tell us, folks, what are you
saying about the Father? Is the Father uncreated?” Of course they’ll say
yes. Who is so < silly >as to doubt this? What sort of nut would sup-
pose that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not uncreated?
You yourselves must surely admit that he is unbegotten, uncreated, and

317 Heb 1:3.

318 Exod 3:14.

319 Matt 18:16.

ARLANS

401

unoriginate. For he has no Father before him nor any limit to his years,
nor any “beginning of days,” 320 as the scripture says.

72,7 “Thus, if he has no beginning of time or end of time, it is agreed
and unquestionable that he is uncreated — but nowhere does scripture
say this of him. 321 But even if it is not scriptural we are obliged, for piety’s
sake, reverently to think and say this of him. (8) In the same way, even if
it were not scriptural we would be compelled to speak of “homoousion”
in our own language as an abbreviation — even though this might seem
beyond us, and the discussion of God might appear to be beyond our
powers, (g) But may the Lord himself pardon-not wishing to defend the
Godhead which has no need of our support, but we must speak with piety
and think with piety, or we perish.

73, r “Well then, disciples of Arius, give us an answer! We all agree in
saying that the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, and the expression
is plainly a wonderful one. Where is it in scripture then? Show us the
place! The Law has not said it, nor the prophets, nor a Gospel, nor the
apostles. Thus if we may use an unscriptural expression with piety, and
it is allowable when said for the glory of God, who can accuse us even
if the homoousion were not in the scriptures, (2) since we have found
a word with which we can confess the certainty of our salvation?” But
there are texts [which, confirm the homoousion when] used with the
help of pious reasoning, the ones I have listed above 322 and many others.
I shall also pass this expression by, however, and with God’s help tear
open their other expressions and devices to which they have given voice
for the entrapment of the innocent.

74, r The same people say further, along with all the texts which, by bad
guesswork, they debase from the Gospel and the Apostle: “As the apostle
says next, and as it is found in the Epistle to the Corinthians, in the chap-
ter on resurrection, (2) ‘Then cometh the end, when he shall have deliv-
ered the kingdom to God and his Father, when he shall have put down
all rule and authority and power. For he must reign until he hath put
all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death. Now when he saith that all things are in subjection under him, it is

320 Heb 7:3.

321 Cf. Ath. Or. I C. Ar. 34.

322 The only text with which Epiphanius has supported the homoousion is Heh 1:3
(72,2). Holl suggests that some Biblical citations may have fallen out; it must be observed,
however, that Epiphanius appears embarrassed by the lack of scriptural support for this
doctrine.

402

ARLANS

manifest that he is excepted that hath put all things in subjection under
him. (3) Now when all things are put in subjection under him, then shall
the Son himself be subject to him that hath put all things under him, that
God may be all in all.’ ” 323

74,4 They seize on this passage, and with their customary hostility
toward the Only-begotten take his ineffable, glorious Godhead away and
say — foolishly, as I have often remarked — “You see that he says, ‘Then
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered the kingdom to God and
his Father, when he shall have put down < every rule and > all authority
and power. For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his
feet.’ (5) But ‘must,’ ‘until,’ and, ‘when he shall deliver the kingdom,’ are
the setting of a time.” And they blasphemously say that these are indica-
tions of the cessation and deposition of the one who is reigning < for he
remains* > [in power only] until he delivers the kingdom to God and his
Father.

74,6 And they do not know the sense of the truth to begin with.
Because of the partaking of our flesh and blood by the Only-begotten
his human frailties are dwelt on and mentioned in connection with his
human nature, in addition to his glory — but not without his ever perfect
and glorious Godhead which needs no enhancement of its glory but pos-
sesses glorification in itself and is perfection itself. (7) He himself gives an
account of the two natures by saying of the more recent one, “Glorify thou
me, Father, with the glory that 1 had with thee before the world was.” 324
But when the Father proclaims the glory of the two natures, he says spiri-
tually of the first, “1 have glorified it,” to show its infinity; but he says, “And
1 will glorify it again,” 325 of the newer nature because of the incarnation.

75,1 Now for the clarification, even here, of the things the apostle said
when he set the truth about Christ down in two ways < and wrote “Son”
because of his divine nature* >, and “until he shall deliver the kingdom
unto God and his Father” because of his human nature’s beginning in
time. For the divinity of the Only-begotten was always with the Father —
that is, the only-begotten divine Word who has proceeded from the Father
without beginning and not in time. (2) Otherwise where is the fulfillment
of the angel’s words, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee?” 326 For he said, “Thou

323 1 Cor 15:24-28. Cf. Marc. Anc. Inc. 20.

324 John 17:5.

325 John 12:28.

326 Luke 1:35.

ARLANS

403

shalt bear a son and shalt call his name Jesus” 327 to Mary, to show that
the divine Word had descended from on high, had taken flesh in this vir-
gin’s womb and perfectly become man. (3) < And > so as not to separate
his human perfection from his divine perfection he and told her with the
addition of the word, “also,” “Therefore also that which shall be born of
thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.” 328

Then < he says >, “God will give unto him the throne of his father David,
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob unto the ages, and of his king-
dom there shall be no end.” 329 (4) Now what should those who do not
know the life-giving scripture say, given that each of these is the opposite
of the other — “He must reign until [some time]” and “He shall reign over
the house of Jacob unto the ages," (and he did not say merely, “unto the
age,” but, “unto the ages.”)? And again, “when he shall have delivered the
kingdom unto God and his Father,” standing in contrast with “and of his
kingdom there shall be no end.” And yet both have said such things of the
Lord and Christ < and > both are entirely trustworthy — the angel Gabriel
is a holy being and the holy apostle inspired — (5) can the scripture, which
is always truthful in all things, contradict itself? Never think it!

But as I said at the outset, because of the implications of the manhood
Christ possesses all its natural accompaniments. (6) For if he ever hands
his rule over to anyone, then he is not ruling now. But if he is not yet
ruling, why is it that he is worshiped continually by the angels and arch-
angels, before and during his advent in the flesh, as the scripture says of
him, “When he bringeth the first begotten into the world, it saith, angels
of God worship him.” 330 And again, “He sat down at the right hand of
the Father.” 331 And again, “Unto him every knee shall bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” 332

75,7 Thus he who is worshiped < by > all, always rules. What shall we
say then, since the Son who rules always-from the beginning, now and
forever — has not yet handed the rule over to the Father? (8) Is the Father
excluded from his rule? Never think it! The Son is ruling together with the
Father, and the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

327 Luke 1:31.

328 Luke 1:35.

329 Luke 1:32.

330 Heb 1:6.

331 Heb 10:12.

332 Phil 2:10.

404

ARLANS

But what are they saying? ‘“When he delivereth the kingdom to God
and his Father does he himself cease to rule?’ ” Never think it! (g) Where
is the application of, “Of his kingdom there shall be no end.” 333 [He shall
deliver the kingdom” is said] to show that nothing which has been found
or is to be found in the Son opposes or differs from the unity of the Father,
and from < the > one will of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (10)
For even here we see that ‘When he shall have delivered the kingdom to
God and his Father, when he shall have put down all rule and authority
and power” 334 is said of the Son in the sense of the Son himself delivering
the kingdom, and putting down all rule and so on. And “He must reign
until he hath put all his enemies under his feet” 335 is said of the Son doing
all things, possessing all sovereignty and authority, and with the kingdom
delivering his subjects to the Father.

76.1 Then next he again switches to another person, that of the Father
in turn, subjecting all things to the Son, and says, “He hath put all things
in subjection under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death.” 336 But he is no longer speaking only in the person of the Father
or only in the person of the Son, but right in between the persons of the
Father and the Son, and he says, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed
is death.”

76.2 “But when he saith that all things have been put under him,” < and
so on >. If I could only ask them in whose person that “He saith” is said!
For the profundity of God’s mysteries judges the fleshly spiritually. “The
fleshly man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness
unto him.” 337 (3) For here, if the Father is speaking to the Son, the action
is defective; the Son made things subject to the Father. But if “when he
saith < that > all things are put in subjection under him” is said in the per-
son of the Son, the thought is unsatisfactory because it assumes futurity in
God, either in the Father or in the Son.

76,4 But who is it that is saying that all things have been made subject?
For it has not said, “when they say”; if it had said, “when they say,” it could
apply either to the angels or to the subjects. (5) But since it has previously
shown the Son subjecting all things and handing them over to the Father,
and the Father subjecting all things to the Son, careful exegetes are left

333 Luke 1:33.

334 1 Cor 15:27.

335 1 Cor 15:25.

336 1 Cor 15:25-26.

337 1 Cor 2:14.

ARLANS

405

with the person of the Holy Spirit. And therefore, after the person of the
Father and the person of the Son, the scripture has unequivocally given
an intimation of the person of the Holy Spirit who always declares and
teaches the truths about the Father and the Son — to keep the full knowl-
edge of the Trinity, and of the additional glory of [Christ’s] human nature,
from being defectively stated. (6) Then he says, “The last enemy that shall
be destroyed is death.” But one who is destroyed has been curbed and can
no longer do what he does, or even exist; he has been destroyed.

77,1 Well, what have those who have no knowledge of the scriptures
to say about this? “If this is what the text said, we must suppose that the
Son will cease to rule.”

But [if we say this] we shall commit an impiety and < venture > to rank
him with God’s subjects, particularly after he ceases to do what he has
been doing. (2) Perish the thought! No one who believes and truly hopes
in Christ will think of saying or hearing anything unbecoming his glory,
as the Arians futilely think that they can. The sacred scripture teaches
everything < by saying >, “When he saith, All things are put in subjection
under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who hath put all things in
subjection under him. But when all things are put in subjection under
him, then shall also the Son himself be subject unto him that hath put all
things under him.” 338

77,3 This means that the statement that was originally made by the
angel, linked [with it] by the similarity of the expression, fittingly and
with perfect clarity reveals the statement’s whole meaning. The angel
said a similar thing, mentioning the Son to begin with and then with an
addition which referred to the human nature, showing the union [of the
natures]: “Therefore that which is born of thee shall also be called holy,
the Son of God.” 339 (4) For this and similar reasons, “because that which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” “the Son himself
will be subject to him that hath put all things under him” so that Christ’s
flesh will no longer be fleshly in power but united in [one union with the
Godhead], and reign with the Father and Holy Spirit, “of whose kingdom
there shall be no end.” 340

77,5 And it is since he has risen that “that God may be all in all” 341 has
had its inception, for his flesh has been spiritually united with his one

338 1 Cor 15:27-28.

339 Luke 1:35.

340 Luke 1:33.

341 1 Cor 15:28.

ARLANS

406

Godhead. But since he says, “Do this in remembrance of me until the com-
ing of the Son of Man,” 342 and "Ye shall see him in like manner as ye
have seen him taken up — ” 343 then finally, when all things have been ful-
filled and nothing left unfulfilled of those things < that are to be > brought
back 344 to his Godhead, the prophecy, “that God may be all in all” < will
come true* >.

77,6 < But > the text says, < “God,” > 345 so that there may be no distinc-
tion [between the manhood and the Godhead]. For there is no distinc-
tion, to make polytheism impossible, for there is one glory. For the Son is
not now out of the Father’s control, like a warlord, or under his control
like a slave with no freedom of action: [he is] < the One > begotten of the
Father, of the same nature and the same Godhead. Nor will he be subject
to the Father then from defect or inferiority, or by compulsion or ces-
sation [of rule], (7) but as a true only-begotten Son who rules with the
Father forever, and who both elevates the whole creation to a single one-
ness and honorable reward and teaches this to his holy church, “so that
God may be all in all.” 346 For there is one Godhead, one sovereignty and
one glory of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Father fittingly honored
by the Son as a true son, and by the Holy Spirit as not different from the
Father and the Son. (8) And let this exclude even the words of those who
blaspheme God’s Son and Holy Spirit, and the thoughts of their enmity to
the Son and the Holy Spirit. And once more we have detected their evil
devices and thwarted them.

78,1 Once more they select certain expressions from the Gospel and say,
“Why can ‘The Son do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father
do?’ ” 347 And they do not understand what is said at the beginning [of the
scripture]; although it was surely the Father, he did not create something
first, and the Son manufacture something afterwards. (2) Which heaven
did the Father make all by himself, for the Son to take the example of the
first heaven as his model, and manufacture something like it?

But none of the inventors of evil can prove this. “In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth,” 348 but he says at the same time, in the

342 Cf. 1 Cor 11:25-26.

343 Cf. Acts 1:11.

344 Holl dvcicpEpEtxSai (ieW-ovtcov, MSS avatpspeiv. We suggest dvoKpepeaScri <Suva(isvcov>

345 1 Cor 15:28.

346 1 Cor 15:28.

347 John 5:19.

348 Gen 1:1.

ARLANS

407

beginning at the creation, “Let us make man in our image and after our
likeness.” 349 And he didn’t say, “Come here and I’ll show you how to do
it.” (3) And then it says, “And God made the man,” 350 and it didn’t say,
“God made him and showed the Son how to make the man.” The Son was
no ignoramus, that he needed to learn a trade first and then put it into
practice.

78.4 But when our Lord had come in his turn, put on flesh, become
man and lived in our midst, he conversed with the Jews who thought that
he was abolishing the Father’s commandments and, desiring to elevate
their minds, so that they would not attend to his manhood alone, said,
“The Son doeth naught but that which he seeth the Father do.” His intent
was to show that the work of the Son is the work of the Father, and that
the Father is pleased with the Son’s execution of all his work.

78.5 And they will also be harried like this < about > each of the other
texts in its turn, when they blunder into them like beasts and are con-
founded by the lightning flash of the Word, the truth. “Flash thy lightning
and scatter them, send forth thine arrows and confound them.” 351 (79,1)
For we have to deal with the following text, which they select next and
quote from the Gospel, “For the Father loveth the Son and showeth him
all that he doeth, and greater works than these shall he show him, that ye
may marvel”; 352 and again, “The Father raiseth the dead and giveth them
life. Likewise also doth the Son give life to whom he will”; 353 and further,
“The Father judgeth no man but hath given all judgment to the Son, that
all may honor the Son as they honor the Father.” 354 (2) But take note,
Arius, at the end of my debate with you, of the conclusion to which the
discourse has come. Christ did not say, “that some may say yes and some
say no,” but, “that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father.” Stop
dishonoring the Son, then, so as not to dishonor the Father! If you choose
to ascribe an inferiority in the Son or suppose some defect in him, does
the supposition not extend to the Father as well? For it is part of your
impudence that you think < meanly > of the Son, and do not honor him
as you honor the Father.

349 Gen 1:26.

350 Gen 1:27.

351 Ps 143:6.

352 Cf. John 5:20.

353 John 5:21.

354 John 5:22-23.

ARLANS

408

79.3 Why, indeed, does the Father also give him [this]? Tell me what
he says, wonder man! “That the Son may give life to whom he will” — he
didn’t say, “to whom he is told.” There were two particular reasons why
the Son needed to receive all this from the Father, though not to be less
than the Father. (4) First, it was to direct our minds upward to a single
oneness of Godhead, the Father, the Son and the ffoly Spirit, and not to
lower the human reason to divisions and a multiplicity of gods, but to
raise it to a single oneness. But second, it was for the transformation of the
glory of Christ’s human nature and its union with his Godhead.

79,5 For since he came to gladden his disciples with the promise he
gave, “There be some standing here that will not taste death till they have
seen the Son of Man coming in his glory,” 355 “and on the eighth day,” 356
as the Gospel says — (6) or, as the other says, "after six days.” 357 For the
evangelists do not say some things in place of others but, although there
is one exact truth, it is constantly safeguarded so that people will have no
excuse to stumble at the essentials, since “The mind of man is continually
bent on evil from his youth.” 358 (7) This is the reason why one evangelist
said, “on the eighth day.” Part of the day on which the Savior said this was
left over, and the evangelist counted from that day and hour — if the day
was declining, about the ninth hour or the tenth. And again, since the
thing was done at about the third or fourth hour of the eighth day, this
day was called the eighth. (8) But the other evangelist provides a safe-
guard and says, “after six days.” He did not count on the day when the
Savior said the word to the disciples, or the day on which he did the work,
but the six full days in between.

80,1 But since I have come to the discussion of the saying, I shall give
the explanation. “He took Peter and James and John and brought them
into the mount, and was transfigured, and his countenance shone as the
sun” — his countenance in the flesh united with his Godhead — and “his
raiment shone white as snow.” 359 Plainly, this means the flesh taken from
Mary, which was of our stock. (2) And it was changed to glory, the added
glory of the Godhead, the honor, perfection and heavenly glory which his
flesh did not have at the beginning, but which it < was > receiving here in
its union with the divine Word.

355 Matt 16:28.

356 Luke 9:28.

357 Matt 17:1.

358 Gen 8:21.

359 Cf. Matt 17:1-2.

ARLANS

409

80,3 In this way understand the words we quoted earlier, “He hath
given all judgment to the Son” 360 — because he has given him authority
“to give life to whom he will” — 361 as proof, first of all, of the unity of the
divine nature, and of its one will which ascribes the whole of goodness
to the Father and to one First Principle and Godhead. For there are three
perfect entities but one Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit;
and in its turn the human nature [of Christ] which, along with the divine
nature, receives the gift, authority and perfection of rank which is granted
it by the Father and the Son, and which < has been united > in a single
spiritual oneness of Godhead.

81,1 And we have barely managed to get past this stormy place and
through this whole attack by savage beasts — the wild heaving of the bil-
lows and the fearful foaming of the seas. Because, in my inadequacy, I
received the power and the grace from God, I have burned my opponents’
spears and shields thanks to the right reasoning in my mind, have broken
the bows of the opposition, < and have been victorious* > over this ser-
pent, the many-headed ugliness of the hydra, (2) so that I can sing < the >
song of triumph in God, “Let us sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously magni-
fied; horse and rider hath he hurled into the sea.” 362

I have broken the dragon’s head above “the water that goes softly,” of
which these present day fellow heirs with the Jews would have no part. The
prophet had them in mind when he said, (3) “Because ye refuse the water
of Siloam that goeth softly, and prefer to have the king Rezin and Tabeel
the son of Remaliah, behold, the Lord bringeth upon you the mighty water
of the river, the king of Assyria,” 363 and so on. (4) But we have received
help in the Lord, the “saliva spat on the ground” by his true flesh, and
with the spittle have received “the clay” smeared “on our eyes,” 364 so that
we who were once in ignorance now know the truth, and have gone and
washed in “Siloam,” which means “the Sent.” 365 That is, [we have washed]
in his human nature and perfect Godhead, and since we now see we no
longer deny the Lord, even though the partisans of Arius and successors
of the Jews cast us out of the synagogue. (5) For like the Jews, the Arians
have agreed that whoever confesses the Lord must “be cast out of the

360 John 5:22.

361 John 5:21.

362 Exod 15:1.

363 Isa 8:6-7.

364 Cf. John 9:6.

365 Cf. John 9:7.

4io

ARLANS

synagogue,” 366 showing that one who has recovered his sight is a reproach
to those who cannot see. For if their synagogue were not all blind, they
would not eject someone whose eyes had been opened.

81.6 Let us thank the Lord, then, that we have recovered our sight and
confess the Lord and, if we perform the work of the commandments, have
healed our hurts; and that we have trod upon the serpent and broken the
head of the dragon by the power of God, to whom be glory, honor and
might, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father with the Holy
Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

81.7 But leaving this hydra we have slain, with its seven heads and
many segments, let us go on to the rest as usual, beloved, calling on God,
our constant help, to take the same care of us and of any who desire to
read this work, for the cure of those who have been bitten, and the cor-
rection of those who have already joined the ranks of the evil.

366 Cf. John 9:22.

ANACEPHALAEOSIS VI

Here too are the contents of Section One of Volume Three, Section Six in
our previously mentioned system of numeration. It contains seven Sects
together with the Schisms, as follows:

70. A rebellion and schism, but not sect, of Audians. They are orderly
in their behavior and way of living, hold the faith exactly as the catho-
lic church does, and most of them live in monasteries. But they make an
immoderate use of a number of apocryphal works. They do not pray with
us because they find fault with our bishops, and call [some of] < them >
“rich” and others, other things. They keep the Passover separately from the
rest of us, on the Jewish date. Besides they have some ignorant, contentious
ideas and interpret our creation in God’s image with extreme literalness.

71. Photinians. Photinus of Sirmium, who is still alive and to this day
has been wandering around; he held the same beliefs as Paul the Samo-
satian. They are somewhat different from Paul but they too maintain that
Christ’s existence dates from Mary.

72. Marcellians, < who > derive from Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia.
Originally he was rumored to have views very close to Sabellius. And
although he often appeared in his own defense, and explained himself
in writing, he was accused by many of persisting in the same beliefs. But
he has probably repented and corrected his errors, he perhaps, or his dis-
ciples. For some orthodox authorities have more or less defended him
and his disciples.

73. Semi-Arians, who confess Christ as a creature, but deceptively say
that he is not a creature like any other. “We call him ‘the Son,’ ” they say,
“but to avoid attributing suffering to the Father as the result of beget-
ting, we say he is a creature.” They similarly state categorically of the Holy
Spirit that he likewise is a creature, and they reject the Son’s homoousion
but prefer to say “homoeousion.” Others of them, however, have rejected
the homoeousion as well.

74. Pneumatomachi. These have proper views of Christ, but blaspheme
the Holy Spirit by defining him as a creature and not of the Godhead but
rather, illegitimately, as something created for an operation, and they say
that he is only a sanctifying power.

75. Aerians. Aerius was from Pontus; he still survives as a trial to the
world. He was a presbyter of the bishop Eustathius who was slanderously
accused of Arianism. And because Aerius was not made bishop himself he

412

AUDIANS

taught many doctrines contrary to those of the church and was a complete
Arian in faith but carried it further. He says we must not make offerings
for those who have fallen asleep before us, and forbids fasting on Wednes-
day and Friday, and in Lent and Paschal time. He preaches renunciation
but eats all sorts of meat and delicacies without hesitation. But he says
that if one of his followers should wish to fast, this should not be on set
days but when he wants to, “for you are not under the Law.” He says that
a bishop is no different from a presbyter.

76. Aetians derive from Aetius of Cilicia, who was made a deacon by
George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are also called Anomoeans,
but some call them Eunomians from one Eunomius, a disciple of Aetius
who is still alive. Also allied with them was the Arianizer Eudoxius, but he
separated himself from them supposedly for fear of the emperor Constan-
tius, and only Aetius was exiled. Eudoxius continued to be an Arianizer,
but not like Aetius.

These Anomoeans, or Aetians, separate Christ and the Holy Spirit from
God altogether, maintain that he is a creature, and deny that he has even
a likeness to God. For they like to give proofs of God with Aristotelian and
geometrical syllogisms, and by such methods < determine >, if you please,
that Christ cannot be of God.

The ones named Eunomians after Eunomius rebaptize all who come
to them, not only [catholics] but < those who come > from the Arians as
well. But they turn their candidates upside down to baptize them, or so
it is widely reported. And they say that if one errs through fornication
or another sin it does not matter; God requires only that one be in none
other than this faith which they hold.

These, too, are the seven sects of Section One of Volume Three, which
is Section Six of the series.

On the Schism of the Audians. 1 50, but 70 of the Series

1,1 Audians, or Odians, are a body < of laity* >. They have withdrawn from
the world and reside in monasteries — in deserts and, nearer the cities,

1 Audius is discussed at Theodore bar Khbni, Pognon pp. 194-196; Theod. H. E. 4.10.1;
Haer. Fab. 4.10. Bar Khouni identifies Audius as the archdeacon of the church in Edessa.
The Audians were on Cyprus for a time, and Epiphanius would have had ample oppor-
tunity for contact with them. 1,5 and 6,2 contain quotations from Audian sources, and
at 8,11 Epiphanius says specifically that he has been quoting them. It is uncertain, how-
ever, whether he is using an Audian written source, or retailing scraps of conversation
and debate.

AUDLANS

413

in suburbs, and wherever they have their residences, or “folds.” Audius
became their founder in Arius’ time, when the council of those who
deposed him was convened against Arius.

1.2 Audius was from Mesopotamia and a man eminent in his home-
land for the purity of his life, godly zeal, and faith. And often, when he saw
the things that went on in the churches under the noses of the bishops
and presbyters, he would oppose such behavior, saying in reproof, “This
is not the way it should be; these things ought not to be so done” — like
a truth-teller, and as befits persons who speak openly from regard for the
truth, particularly when their own lives are exemplary.

1.3 And so, as I said, when he saw such things in the churches he felt
compelled to speak in reproof of them, and would not keep quiet. For if
he saw a money-loving member of the clergy — a bishop, or presbyter, or
any other cleric — he was sure to speak out. And if he saw one < living > in
luxury and wantonness, or someone debasing the church’s message and
ordinance, he could not abide it, and, as I said, would accuse him. (4) And
to those whose lives were not up to standard, this was burdensome.

He was insulted and contradicted for this, was hated, and lived a stormy
life of rejection and dishonor. For some time he was in good standing in
the churches until certain persons, in extreme annoyance, expelled him
for this reason. He would not consent to this, however, but persisted in
speaking the truth and in not withdrawing from the bond of the one unity
of the holy catholic church.

1,5 But because he was subjected to beatings, and his companions
with him, and often very ill-used, he most reluctantly took account of
the wretchedness of his mistreatment. For he separated himself from the
church and many rebelled with him, and this is the way he caused the
division, with no divergence at all from the faith but entire orthodoxy on
his part and his companions’ — even though one must certainly say that
he and his aderents are contentious in a certain small point.

2,1 Besides his admirable confession of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit in the sense of the catholic church, and his completely ortho-
dox observance of the rest, his whole manner of life < was > admirable.
(2) For he earned his living with his own hands, and so did the bishops
under him, and the presbyters and all the rest. (He was consecrated
bishop later, after his expulsion from the church, by another bishop who
had the same complaint and had withdrawn from the church.) (3) < But >
as to what I started to say — since I have gotten sidetracked I shall take
up the thread again and tell the whole story — I mean about the expres-
sion from the sacred scriptures which he harps on, as though to be as

AUDIANS

stubborn, ignorant and contentious as possible. (4) For he and his adher-
ents stubbornly declare that the gift God granted Adam of being in his
image applies to his body, 2 supposedly because of the literal wording of
“Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” 3 And then the
word of God adds, “And God took dust of the earth and made man.” 4
(5) “Since scripture has said < that God made > man from the earth,” says
Audius, “see how it has said with perfect truth that the entire earthy part
is ‘man.’ Therefore it said earlier that the earthy part of man will itself be
in the image of God.”

And this is stubborn, as I said, and ignorant — this deciding in which
part of man, if there is any need to say, “part,” God’s image is located —
because of the many conflicting ideas of this text which occur to peo-
ple, occasioning a number of disputes. (6) If being “in the image of God”
applies literally, and not figuratively, to the body, we shall either make
God visible and corporeal by saying this, or else make man God’s equal.
(7) We should therefore never declare or affirm with confidence which
part of man is “in God’s image,” but, not to make light of God’s grace and
disbelieve God, we should confess that God’s image is in man.

For whatever God says is true, even though, in a few instances, it has
eluded our understanding. (8) To deny this doctrine of God’s image is not
faithful, or true to God’s holy church. All people are plainly in God’s image
and no one whose hope is in God will deny it, unless certain persons, who
are expelled from the church and the tradition of the patriarchs, prophets,
Law, apostles and evangelists, make up their own mythology.

3,1 And thus, with their quite contentious position on this point, the
Audians too depart from the church’s form of the tradition, which believes
that everyone is in God’s image but < makes > no < attempt > to define
where in man the image is located. For neither those who discuss this in
mythological terms, nor those who deny it, can prove their point. 5 (2) For
some say that “in the image” applies to the soul, from a belief that only
physical things are susceptible to reasoning. And people like this do not
know that the soul can be reasoned about — if we must attend to syllogisms

2 Cf. Theod. H. E. 4.10.2; Haer. Fab. 4.10; Theodore bar Khouni, Pognon p. 195.

3 Gen 1:26.

4 Gen 1:27. Cf. Gen. 2:7. Chrysostom argues against an anthropomorphic interpretation
of these texts at In Gen. Sermo 2.2., PG 54, 589.

5 The discussion which follows is anti-Origenist. Cf. Anc. 55,4; Epiphanius/John of Jeru-
salem = Jer. Ep. 51.7.

AUDLANS

415

and not just rely on God with simple minds and believe that what God has
said is truth, but is known only to one who knows the whole truth.

3,3 Others, though, say in turn that “in the image” applies neither to
the soul nor to the body, but means virtue. But others say that it is not
virtue but baptism and the gift conferred in baptism, supposedly from the
literal wording of “As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly.” 6 Others, again, disagree (4) but prefer to
say that the image of God was in Adam until he fell into transgression,
ate of the tree, and was expelled. But from the time of his expulsion he
lost the image. (5) And people do make up a lot of stories! We must not
“give place” to them “even for an hour” 7 — to the one group or the other, to
those who say this, or those who say that — but believe that the image of
God is in man, but that, first and foremost, it is in the whole man and not
just < in one part >. But where this image is, or to which part of man “in
the image” applies, is known only to the God who has graciously granted
man the image.

3,6 For man has not lost the image of God, unless he has debased the
image by sullying himself with unimportant matters and pernicious sins.
See here, God says to Noah after Adam’s time, “Lo, I have given thee all
things as herbs of the field. Slay and eat, but eat not flesh with the life-
blood, for I shall require your lives. Everyone that sheddeth a man’s blood
upon the earth, for the blood of that man his own blood shall be required,
for in the image of God have I made man, and I will require your blood
from everyone that sheddeth it upon the face of the earth.” 8 (7) And do
you see that God’s image is said to be in man ten generations after the
creation of Adam?

David too, much later, says < in > the Holy Spirit, “All is vanity, every
man that liveth; < and yet man goeth on in the image. >” 9 Moreover,
the apostle after him says, “A man ought not to have long hair, for he
is the image and glory of God.” 10 (8) Moreover James after him says that
‘The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith we bless
our God and Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made in the
image of God. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.” * 11 And see

6 1 Cor 15:49.

7 Gal 2:5.

8 Cf. Gen 9:3-6.

9 Ps 38:6-7.

10 1 Cor 11:7.

11 James 3:8-10.

416

AUDIANS

how the argument of those who say that Adam lost the image of God has
come to nothing.

4.1 But again, the argument and explanation of the people who say that
“in the image” means the soul, goes something like this. The soul is invis-
ible as God is invisible. It is active, a mover, intelligent, rational — and for
this reason it is the image of God, since it mimics God on earth by mov-
ing, acting and doing all the other things that man does rationally. (2) But
they too can be out-argued. If these are the reasons why the soul is said
to be in the image of God, it cannot be in his image. God is more than ten
thousand times, and still more incomprehensible and inconceivable than
the soul, knowing all things past and present, visible and invisible, the
ends of the earth and the pillars of the abyss, the heights of heaven and all
that is, himself containing all things but contained by none. (3) The soul,
however, is contained in a body, does not know the pillars of the abyss,
has no knowledge of the breadth of the earth, is unacquainted with the
ends of the world, does not comprehend the heights of heaven, < and does
not know* > all that will be, or when it, and all that has come to be before
it, comes to be. And there is a great deal to say about it and about things
of its sort, and besides, the soul has divisions, while God is indivisible. (4)
The apostle says, “For the word of God is living, and quick, and sharper
than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul
and marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and intents. And no creature
is not manifest in his sight,” 12 and so on. And you see that their argument
[here] has also failed.

5.1 And the argument of those who say that the body is in God’s image
has failed in its turn. How can the visible be like the invisible? How can
the corporeal be like the incorporeal? How can the tangible be like the
incomprehensible? (2) We see in front of us with the eyes we have, but do
not know what is behind us. But in God there is no vicissitude, no defect,
never think it! He is altogether light, altogether eye, altogether glory; for
God is spirit, and spirit above spirit, and light above every light. For all
that he has made is inferior to his glory; only the Trinity exists in incom-
prehensibility, and in incomparable, unfathomable glory.

5,3 And as to the argument of those who say, in turn, that virtue is the
image — there can be no virtue without the observance of the command-
ments, but many people differ from each other in virtue. For there are
many kinds of virtue. I myself know some who are confessors, who have

12 Heb 4:12-13.

AUDLANS

417

given their bodies and souls for their Master in the confession of him; who
have persevered in purity and held the truest faith; who are outstanding
in godliness, kindliness and piety and have persevered in fasting, and in
every kind of goodness and the marks of virtue. (4) But they happen to
have some failing — < they are > abusive, swear by God’s name, are story-
tellers or irritable, lead a life < covetous* > of gold, silver and the rest — all
things which lessen the measure of virtue. What shall we say? Did they
acquire God’s image because of their virtue, but suddenly < lose* > God’s
image because of a few human failings, < so that* > the image of God < is
incomplete* >, and the image in them is no longer full? And again, their
argument has failed.

5,5 Once more, there is a great deal wrong with the argument of those
who say that baptism is < the > image of God. Abraham did not have bap-
tism — or Isaac, Jacob, Elijah, Moses, or Noah and Enoch before them, or
the prophets, Isaiah and the rest. Well? Don’t they have the image? And
there is much to say in reply < to > these people, as there is < to > the
Audians with their contentious location of the image of God in the body.

6,1 But the Audians cite certain other texts as well. They say, ‘“The eyes
of the Lord look upon the poor, and his ears are open unto their prayer, 13
and, ‘The hand of the Lord hath made all these,’ 14 and, ‘Hath not my hand
made all these, O stiff-necked people?’ 15 (2) and, ‘Heaven is my throne and
the earth is my footstool,’ 16 and whatever else of the kind that scripture
says of God. ‘I saw the Lord of hosts seated upon a throne high and lifted
up’; 17 His head was white as wool and his garment white as snow.’ 18 And
do you see,” they say, “how the body is in the image of God?” And even
in this they are refractory, and press the text, “The Lord appeared to the
prophets” 19 farther than it is in man’s power to do.

6,3 Of course the Lord appeared as he chose since he is mighty in all
things, and we do not deny that the prophets saw God — and not only
the prophets, but the apostles as well. St. Stephen the Protomartyr says,
“Behold, I see heaven open, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand
of God and the Lather.” 20

13 Ps 10:4; 33:16.

14 Isa 41:20.

15 Isa 66:1.

16 Isa 66:1.

17 Isa 6:1.

18 Cf. Dan 7:9.

19 This citation is not scriptural.

20 Acts 7:2.

418

AUDIANS

6.4 But in his kindness to his creation God the all-good [reveals him-
self] by his power, so that no unbeliever may suppose that what is said
of God is mere words and not fact, that what is said of God stops with
speech, and that the apostle’s “He that cometh to God must believe that
he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that love him,” 21 is not so. (5) To
hearten the man he has formed God reveals himself to his holy and wor-
thy ones, so that they may actually see God, be secure in their minds, hope
in truth, truly proclaim him, and assure the faithful, (6) “Of course the
pagans’ beliefs about God are nothing but words and imagination. But we
really know God, the true and truly existent king, the incomprehensible,
the maker of all, one God — and the only-begotten God who is begotten
of him and in no way different from the Father; and his Holy Spirit, who
differs in no way from the Father and the Son” — as I have said at length,
in every Sect, about the godly faith.

7.1 And that God has appeared to men I have often said and do not
deny. For if we deny the sacred scriptures we are not truthful, but guilty
of abandoning the truth — or, if we reject the Old Testament, we are no
longer members of the catholic church.

7.2 But the Gospel has said, “No man hath seen God at any time, let
the only-begotten God himself declare him.” 22 On the other hand, the
same sacred scripture < says >, “God appeared to Abraham when he was
in Mesopotamia.” 23 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel, “Their angels
behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” 24

7.3 But someone will be sure to say the sacred scripture means that the
prophets saw God in their minds, because of the text, “Even their angels
behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” and again, “Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” 25 (4) If < someone > has noticed
this and put texts together to fit his own conception, < he > might say that
each prophet sees God in his mind, for he does not do it with his eyes.

7.5 But the sacred scripture contradicts this by saying through Isa-
iah the prophet, “Woe is me, for I am stunned, for I, a man of unclean
lips, dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and with mine eyes
I have seen the Lord of hosts.” 26 And he didn’t say with his mind or in

21 Heb 11:6.

22 Cf. John 1:18.

23 Acts 7:2.

24 Matt 18:10.

25 Matt 5:8.

26 Isa 6:1.

AUDLANS

419

his thoughts but with his eyes, confirming the truths and certainties of
the faith.

7,6 What can we say, then, when the Gospel says that no one has ever
seen God, while the prophets and apostles, and the Lord himself, say that
they have? Is there any contradiction in the sacred scripture? Never! (7)
Prophets and apostles did see God, and this is true. But they saw him as
they were able and as it was possible for them, and God appeared to them
as he willed, “for with him all things are possible.” 27 That God is invisible
and incomprehensible, this is plain and universally agreed; but on the
other hand, he is able to do what he wills, “For none can resist his will.” 28
By his nature, then, he is invisible, and in his glory he is incomprehensible;
(8) but if he chooses to appear to the man he has made, there is nothing to
oppose his will. For the Godhead has no frailties to prevent its doing what
it wills or make it do what it does not will; it has the power to do what it
wills. But it does what befits the Godhead, for there is nothing whatever to
oppose God’s will so that he cannot do what he wills in keeping with his
Godhead. (9) And first and foremost, it is not possible for a human being
to see God, and the visible is not competent to see the invisible. But the
invisible God has accomplished the impossible by his loving kindness and
power, and by his might has rendered some worthy of seeing the invisible.
And the person who < saw > him saw the invisible and infinite, not as the
infinite was, but as the nature of one who had no power to see him could
bear when empowered to the fullest. And there can be no discrepancy in
the sacred scripture, nor will text will be found in contradiction to text.

8,1 To give an example I have often used, it is as though one saw the
sky through a very small opening and said, "I see the sky,” and such a man
would not be lying; he really does see the sky. But someone might wisely
tell him, “You haven’t seen the sky,” and he would not be lying. (2) The
person who says he has seen the sky isn’t lying, and the person who tells
him he hasn’t is also telling the truth. For the man didn’t see its extent or
its breadth. And the person who had seen it told the truth, but the one
who replied that he hadn’t did not lie, but also told the truth.

8,3 Besides, we often stand on a mountain top and behold the sea, and
if we say we have seen the sea, we haven’t lied. But if someone replies,
“You haven’t seen it,” he isn’t lying either. Where its full breadth reaches
to, its full length, its depth, where the innermost chambers of the deep

27 Matt 19:26.

28 Cf. Rom 9:19.

420

AUDIANS

are and the furthest bounds of the deep, < no > human being can know.
(4) Now if our knowledge of created things is so limited, how much more
with the grace God has granted the prophets and apostles? They truly saw
God, and yet did not see him. They saw him as far as their natures could
bear, and that by the grace of the power with which, from love of the man
who is his, He who is mighty in all things has endowed his true servants.

8,5 So if Audians think that God has hands for this reason, or eyes or
the rest, because he so appeared to the prophets and apostles, they are
behaving contentiously but are confuted by the truth. (6) Of all that God
says in the sacred scripture, we must believe that it is; but how it is, is
known to him alone. And that he really appeared — yes, but he appeared
as he willed to, and truly looked as he appeared. For God can do all things,
and nothing is impossible for him. But, being unfathomable spirit, he is
incomprehensible, containing all things but himself contained by none.
(7) And as is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit in Godhead.
But only the Only-begotten came and assumed the flesh in which he also
rose, which he also united with his Godhead joining it to spirit, < and >
[in which] he sat down in glory at the Father’s right hand as the scripture
says. (8) And since he is incomprehensible and unfathomable, all that is
said of him is really true. And since God is incomprehensible all that is
said of him is sure, but there is no comprehending God’s attributes, and
how he exists in incomprehensible glory.

8,9 And with my human lips I have said these things in praise of God
as I was able. For even though I have further ideas about God in my mind
I do not have the use of a tongue other than the one God has meted out
to me. But all that is in the mind the mouth cannot say since it is closed
by its measure and hemmed in by the organs of the body. (10) And so
God pardons me and accepts my knowledge of him, and the praise that is
beyond my power to give. < Not that I desire > to give God anything, but I
desire to glorify the Godhead as best 1 can, so as to hold godly beliefs, and
not be deprived of his grace and truth.

8,11 In singling out these points about Audius and the Audians 1
have reported the things they say, which they inappropriately affirm by
expounding them themselves in an eccentric way, and by contentiously
persisting in them. (9,1) But they have certain other positions besides,
on which they take a particularly strong stand and have aggravated the
division of the church, and with which they frighten others, often detach
them from the church, and have attracted men and women. (2) For they
choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews — that is, they conten-
tiously celebrate the Passover at the same time that the Jews are holding

AUDLANS

421

their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed, < it is true > that this used
to be the church’s custom — even though they tell churchmen a slander-
ous thing in this regard and say, (3) "You abandoned the fathers’ Paschal
rite in Constantine’s time from deference to the emperor, and changed
the day to suit the emperor.” (4) And some, again, declare with a con-
tentiousness of their own, "You changed the Passover to Constantine’s
birthday.” 29

g,5 And if the Paschal Feast were celebrated on the same day each
year, and it had been decided to keep it on that day at the council con-
voked by Constantine, what they say might be plausible. But since the rite
cannot be held on the same date each year, their argument is worthless.
The emperor was not concerned for his birthday, but for the unity of the
church. (6) In fact God accomplished two very important things through
Constantine, the most beloved of God and forever the most blessed. [One
was] the gathering of an ecumenical council and the publication of the
creed that was issued at Nicaea and confessed < by > the assembled bish-
ops with their signatures — the deposition of Arius, and the declaration
to all of the purity of the faith. [The other was] their rectification of the
Paschal Feast for the sake of our unity.

9,7 For long ago, even from the earliest days, its various celebrations
in the church differed, occasioning ridicule every year, with some keeping
it a week early and quarreling with the others, others a week late — some
celebrating it in advance, some in between, others afterwards. (8) And in
a word, as is not unknown to many scholarly persons, there was a lot of
muddle and tiresomeness every time a controversy was aroused in the
church’s teaching about this festival — as in the time of Polycarp and Vic-
tor the east was at odds with the west and they would not accept letters of
commendation from each other. 30 (g) But in as many other times — as in
the time of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Criscentius, 31 when
each is found writing to the other and quarreling, and down to our own
day. This has been the situation ever since < the church > was thrown into
disorder after the time of the circumcised bishops. 32 And so < bishops >,

29 Holl III, p. 241: “Die Vicennalia Konstantins sind am 25. Juli 325 (natalis purpurae)
gefeiert: die Audianer meinen, man habe dem Kaiser die Einigung iiber den Ostertermin
als Geburtstagsgeschenk dargebracht; Epiphanius missversteht das.”

30 Epiphanius may have learned of the controversy between Polycarp and Victor from
Eus. H. E. 5.24.1-11.

31 Criscentius is mentioned on p. 7 of the Chronicon Paschale (Dindorf).

32 The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem. Cf. Eus. H. E. 4.4.5.

422

AUDIANS

gathering then from every quarter and making a precise investigation,
determined that the festival be celebrated with one accord, as befits its
date and rite.

10,1 But on this point the Audians cite the Ordinance of the Apostles,
which is held to be dubious by many but is not spurious. For it contains
every canonical regulation and no falsification of the faith < is to be found >
there — of its confession, or of the church’s order, law and creed. (2) But
the line which they seriously misinterpret, and ignorantly misunderstand
in taking < their cue > for the Paschal Feast from it, is < the following >.
The apostles decree in the Ordinance, “Reckon ye not, but celebrate when
your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate with them.” 33 And they
did not say, “your brethren In the circumcision,” but, “your brethren of the
circumcision,” to show that those who had come from the circumcision to
the church were the leaders from then on, and so that the others would
agree < with them >, and one not celebrate the Paschal Feast at one time,
and another at another. (3) For they came to this conclusion entirely for
the sake of the [church’s] unity.

But the Audians were not aware of the apostles’ intent and the intent of
the passage in the Ordinance, and thought that the Paschal Feast should
be celebrated with the Jews. (4) And there were altogether fifteen bishops
from the circumcision. 34 And at that time, when the circumcised bishops
were consecrated at Jerusalem, it was essential that the whole world fol-
low and celebrate with them, so that there would be one concord and
agreement, the celebration of one festival. (5) Hence their their concern
[was] to bring people’s minds into accord for the unity of the church.

< But* > since < the festival* > could not be celebrated < in this way* >
for such a long time, by God's good pleasure < a correction > was made for
harmony’s sake was made in the time of Constantine. (6) For the words
of the apostles are quoted here for the sake of harmony, as they testify by
saying, “Even if they are in error, let it not concern you.” 35 But from the
very words that are said there, the contradiction will be evident. For they
say that the vigil should be held midway through the Days of Unleavened

33 The Didascalia in its present form does not contain this line, but Schwartz and oth-
ers argue (pp. 104-121) that the Didascalia is a much edited and reedited lawbook; the
quotation may have stood in the version known to the Audians and Epiphanius. In fact
the version of the Didascalia now extant ties the Easter celebration to the Jewish Paschal
Feast, in that it directs Christians to begin their fast of Holy Week on the day of the Jewish
Paschal Feast, Didascalia 21, S-S p. 218; A-F p. 110.

34 Cf. Eus. H. E. 4.5.3.

35 This is connected with the quotation above. Cf. the preceding note.

AUDLANS

423

Bread. 36 But by the church’s dating [of the Paschal Feast] this cannot
always be done.

11,1 For the fixing of the date of the Paschal Feast is determined by three
factors: from the course of the sun; because of the Lord’s Day; and because
of the lunar month which is found in the Law, so that the Passover may be
slain on the fourteenth of the month as the Law says. (2) Thus 37 it cannot
be celebrated unless the day of the equinox is past, although the Jews do
not observe this or care to keep so important a matter precise; with them,
everything is worthless and erroneous. 38 Still, even though such precision
is required in so important a question, the apostles’ declaration was not
made for the sake of this question and for precision, but in the interest
of concord. And < if >, as the Audians insist, the apostles’ ordinance was
that we celebrate with the enemies of Christ, how much more must we
celebrate with the church for the sake of concord, so as not to mar the
harmony of the church?

11,3 Now how can this (i.e., celebrating on the Jewish date) be done?
The same apostles say, “When they feast, mourn ye for them with fasting,
for they crucified Christ on the day of the feast. And when they mourn on
the Day of Unleavened Bread and eat with bitter herbs, then feast ye.” 39
(4) But it sometimes happens that they take the bitter herbs on the Lord’s
Day. For they can slay the Passover at evening at the dawning of the Lord’s
Day. For they cannot do [this] work after the evening [just after] the Sab-
bath is over. Very well, if they wake up feasting after slaughtering [the
lamb], how can we mourn and weep on the Lord’s Day since, again, the
apostles tell us in the Ordinance, “Whoso afflicteth his soul on the Lord’s
Day is under God’s curse.” 40

11,5 And do you see how much scruple and contradiction there is
when the thing cannot be done as directed? But the whole truth lies in
the purpose of their teaching, and from the apostles’ Ordinance itself < it

36 “Ihr sollt eifrig sein, um ihre Wachen zu erfiillen mitten im Fest ihrer ungesauerten,”
Didascalia 21, S-S p. 222; A-F p. 114.

37 Because the course of the sun, as well as the course of the moon, must be taken into
account

38 Cf. Didascalia 21, "the error and the destruction of the people,” S-S p. 216; A-F p. m.
This is supplementary evidence that Epiphanius was familiar with some form of the Didas-
calia.

39 This is not in the version of the Didascalia now extant. But cf. Didascalia 21, A-F
p. 114: “Ihr miisst also fasten, wenn jenes Volk das Pasach feiert, und eifrig sein, ihre
Wachen zu erfiillen mitten in ihrer ungesauerten.” Cf. S-S p. 222.

40 Didascalia 21, A-F p. 114, “Am Sonntag aber sollt ihr allezeit guter Dinge sein, denn
der macht sich einer Siinde schuldig, der am Sonntag sich selbst qualt.” Cf. S-S p. 222.

424

AUDIANS

is plain > how the fixing of the reckoning was arrived at for the sake of
concord. < For > if we < always > celebrate when the Jews do, < we shall
sometimes celebrate > after the equinox, as they often do, and we too;
and again, we shall sometimes celebrate before the equinox, as they do
when they celebrate alone. 41 (6) Therefore if we celebrate [then] too, we
may keep two Paschal Feasts in one year, [one] after the equinox and
[one] before it; but the next year we shall not keep any Paschal Feast at
all, and the whole thing will turn out to be error rather than of truth. For
the year will not be over before the day of the equinox; and the cycle 42
of the course [of the sun], which God has given men, is not complete
unless the equinox is past.

12,1 And much could be said about the good the fathers did — or rather,
the good God did through them — by arriving at the absolutely correct
determination, for the church, of this all-venerable, all-holy Paschal Feast,
its celebration after the equinox, which is the day on which the date of
the fourteenth of the lunar month falls. Not that we are to keep it on the
fourteenth itself; the Jews require one day, while we require not one day
but six, a full week. (2) The Law itself says, to extend the time, “Ye shall
take for yourselves a lamb of a year old, without blemish, perfect, on the
tenth of the month, and ye shall keep it until the fourteenth, and ye shall
slay it near evening on the fourteenth day of the month,” 43 that is, the
lunar. But the church observes the Paschal festival, (3) that is, the week
which is designated even by the apostles themselves in the Ordinance,
beginning with the second day of the week, the purchase of the lamb. And
the lamb is publicly slaughtered (i.e., by the Jews) if the fourteenth of the
month falls on the second day of the week — or if it falls on the third, the
fourth, the fifth, the eve of the Sabbath, or the Sabbath; for the six days
are designated for this purpose. 44

12,4 For neither can we < end > the Paschal Feast when the sixteenth
of the month begins, or begin the so-called holy week of dry fare and
Paschal Feast on the ninth, but [must keep] between the tenth and the
night before the fifteenth, in between the two courses of night and day.
(5) And though their reckoning, of the fourteen days of the lunar month,
is included [in ours] — even though it barely reaches to daybreak on the
fifteenth because of our necessarily exact calculation of the course of the

41 I.e., when the Christians cannot observe the same day.

42 Holl 7ispi(tETpoi;, MSS Eviauxop.

43 Exod 12:3; 5; 6.

44 Epiphanius’ point is that the Jews really keep a week themselves, as the Christians do.

AUDLANS

425

sun after the equinox, the course of the moon because of the fourteenth,
and the full week because of the Lord’s Day — [still], we also < observe* >
the calculation on the tenth day, which is the taking of the lamb and the
initial letter of the name of Jesus. For his antitype, a lamb, was taken in
this name, and so is set on the tenth.

But we cannot have the beginning or end [of the festival] at the begin-
ning of the sixteenth of the month, or on the ninth. (6) For by growing
progressively shorter 45 because of the difference between the courses of
the sun and the moon the [lunar] years cause the following inequality,
though this is not meant to be a divinely ordained stumbling block. For
this exact computation has been set by God in his all-wise governance,
which he has granted his world by appointing, of his loving kindness, the
bounds of the luminaries, seasons, months, years and solstices, through
his providential care for humankind.

13,1 For though the solar year is completed in 365 days and three hours,
there is still a shortage of eleven days, three hours in the course of the
moon, since the moon completes its year in 354 days. (2) And the first
year has eleven intercalary days, so called, and three hours, the second
has twenty-two days and six hours, and the third has thirty-three days and
nine hours. This makes one intercalary month, as it is called.

13,3 For the thirty days are intercalated, but three days and nine hours
are left over. Added to the eleven days and three hours of the fourth year,
these make fourteen days and twelve hours. And when another eleven
days and three hours are added, the total is twenty-five days and fifteen
hours. And in the sixth year, since another eleven days and three hours
are added to the year, there is a total of thirty-six days and eighteen hours,
which make one intercalary month. And two months have been interca-
lated, and (one) every three years. (4) There is one month in the first three
years, and another month in the other three.

And six days, plus eighteen hours, are left over from the intercalary
days. When these are added, in the seventh year, to the eleven days and
three hours of that year, the total is seventeen days and twenty-one hours.
And when the eleven days and three hours are again added on the eighth
year, this becomes twenty-eight intercalated days — and twenty-four
hours, which make two days. (5) The sum of these hours added to the
twenty-eight days is thirty. And so the thirty days < are intercalated > in

45 avSimepPiTw? uarEpouvTEp, literally, “by retrogressive deficiency.” I.e., because of the
greater length of the solar year, the end of the lunar year moves farther back, each year,
toward the beginning of the solar year, unless this is corrected by intercalation.

426

AUDIANS

the eighth year, the one month in two years. (6) And thus ninety days

< are intercalated > over a period of eight years These are a total of three
intercalary months, which come one month every three years, and later
one month in two. The paschal festival differs among Jews, Christians and
the others, in these three intercalations of the groups of days.

14.1 Here is where the Audians differ; and they deceive men and
women in this regard with their parade of keeping the original tradi-
tion and following the Ordinance of the Apostles. But they ignore any
exact calculation and are not clear about the apostles’ charge in the Ordi-
nance — which was by no means to hold the observance exactly < like >
the Jews, but to eliminate the contentiousness of those who each wanted
to celebrate in their own way, and not in harmony. (2) For Christ desires
one Paschal Feast, reckons this [one a Paschal Feast], and accepts a per-
son who keeps it without contention but with those whose observance
is exact, [that is], all the holy church which keeps the festival in many
places. (3) And if the Paschal Feast had been fragmented after Constan-
tine, the slanderers would have a point. But since the divisions came
before Constantine and ridicule arose, with the pagans talking about the
disharmony in the church and making fun of it — but by the zeal of the
bishops the division was united in one harmony in Constantine’s time —
(4) what can be more important and acceptable than to reconcile a peo-
ple to God from [all] the ends of the earth on one day? [What better]
than that they agree, hold their vigil and keep exactly the same days, and

< serve* > God with watchings, supplications, concord, service, fasting,
abstinence, purity and the other good things that please God, on this all-
venerable day? But I think this is enough about this matter of the Audians’
disagreement.

14,5 Audius suffered exile in his old age and was banished to Scythia
by the emperor; < for > he was reported to the emperor by the bishops
because of the rebellion of the laity. He lived there for the most part — I
cannot say for how many years — and then went further on, even into
the interior of Gothia. He instructed many Goths, and many monaster-
ies therefore arose in Gothia itself, and the religious life, virginity and
an ascetic discipline of no mean order. (6) In fact this body is absolutely

< outstanding* > in its admirable conduct, and all their customs are well
regulated in their monasteries, except for these points of contention, the
difference in their Paschal Feast and their ignorant profession of the doc-
trine of the divine image.

15.1 But the worst, most fearful thing of all is that they will not pray
with someone even if he is plainly respectable and they have nothing to

AUDLANS

427

accuse him of — no charge of fornication, adultery or covetousness, but
simply membership in the church. Besides, this is a fearful thing, to change
the name of the Christians — the holy church, which has no additional
name, but simply the name of Christ and Christians — < and > be named
for Audius, and to make, and be required to make a covenant < against >
the human race even though the group is outstanding in life, 46 pure and
boasts of all righteousness.

15.2 For even after Audius’ death many joined them and became bish-
ops of his faction after him — one Uranius of Mesopotamia, and they got
some men from Gothia and consecrated them as bishops, < including. . . > 47
and there was a Silvanus and certain others. But some of these have died,
Uranius in particular. For he was proud to be a member of this group.

15.3 But many members were dispersed after the death of these bish-
ops, Uranius and Silvanus of Gothia, and their body dwindled to a small
one in Chalcis by Antioch, and the Euphrates region. (4) Indeed, the
majority of them were hounded out of Gothia — not only they, but also
the Christians of our kind who were there, when a great persecution was
launched by a pagan king. He was a dreadful person; besides, he drove
all the Christians out of those < territories* > from anger at the Romans,
because the Roman emperors were Christian. But neither a root of wis-
dom nor a shoot of faith is wanting; even if they all appear to have been
driven out, there must surely be < faithful > men there. It is not possible
for the spring of faith to fail.

15.5 Many Audian refugees from Gothia came even here < to > our
country, and lived as resident aliens for four years after that time. But they
also withdrew once again < to > their Audian monasteries in the Taurus
mountains, and in Palestine and Arabia. For they are widely dispersed
by now but are still very few in number, and have few monasteries. But
perhaps the group is still in two villages in the outer part of Chalcis, as I
mentioned, and beyond Damascus and Mesopotamia, though, as I said,
gready reduced in number.

15.6 But I think that is enough about this group in its turn. Once
more, I shall pass them by and investigate the rest, so as to omit nothing
about the divisions, splits, differences and schisms which have arisen in
the world. For even though they are not that much changed in faith and

46 Holl SiaxEipEvov, MSS jEpvupEvov.

47 A name appears to have fallen out at this point.

428

PHOTINIANS

< different* > in behavior, if I can help it I am still not going to omit any
separate group which has its own name.

Against Photinians. 1 51, but 7; of the Series

1,1 Photinus, the founder of the Photinians, flourished in our own time.
Although he had been made a bishop of the holy catholic church he was
taken with no light case of insanity but was madder than all before him,
taking a view of the Son of God which was like Paul the Samosatian’s
and worse, and belching out confused blasphemies. (2) He came from
Sirmium, 2 and was a bishop when he introduced this tare to the world in
the reign of the emperor Constantius. < But > he has survived to this day,
and was deposed by the western council which was assembled at Sardica, 3
for the stream of blasphemy which he spat up. (3) He claims that Christ
does not exist from the beginning but is from Mary’s time — since the Holy
Spirit came upon her, he says, and he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. But
the Holy Spirit is greater than Christ — says he, like a venturesome master
builder, and a surveyor of the ineffable heights of heaven.

1,4 Photinus was all talk and glib tongue, but could fool many with his
flow of words and readiness of speech. For though he was refuted many
times by many opponents < he persisted in his defense of himself* > — even
after his defense at Sardica, when he was summoned by the bishops to
give an account of the heresy he had put forward. Indeed, on the plea
that he had been deposed for nothing, he asked the emperor Constan-
tius for another set of auditors, so as to prove that he had been deposed
for no good reason. (5) And so at that time the emperor sent Thalassius,
Datianus, Cerealius, Taurus, Marcellinus, Euanthius, Olympius, and Leon-
tius to be the judges and auditors of his the defense he was going to make,
with Basil of Ancyra examining and rebutting him or, indeed, accepting
the points he would make in his own defense.

1,6 Photinus made a speech of some length to Basil with his words in
the discussion. But he offered confused statements which, like a painted
hussy’s complexion, < had a meaning something like* > the sense of the

1 Epiphanius' information comes chiefly from the stenographic record of Photinus'
debate with Basil of Ancyra at the Council of Sirmium in 35r ad. See 2,8.

2 Actually from Ancyra in Galatia.

3 The Council of Sardica did not deal with Photinus. His first condemnation came at
Antioch in 344, cf. Ath. Syn. 27U and the Ecthesis Macrostichus of the third Council of
Antioch, c. 6 (Hahn, p. 194).

PHOTINLANS

429

truth, but in his own mind were understood in an altered sense. (7) But
when Basil and the audience < were caught > by his deceptive talk and
the readiness of his speech for verbal trickery, the hotshot, even boast-
fully, profesed himself ready to cite a hundred texts in proof of his thesis.
(8) For despite the < auditors’ > frequent replies to him < he never stopped
offering arguments* > — as I have found in the Speech to Basil, 4 in the
parts they had the stenographers take down: Basil’s deacon, Anysius; the
governor Ruhnus’ secretary, Callicrates; the recorders Olympius, Nicetes
and Basil; and the imperial notaries Eutyches and Theodulus. One volume
was sent sealed to the emperor Constantius, one remained with Basil’s
council, and another, likewise sealed, < was left > with the court officials
as the statements 5 of Photinus’ opinion.

2.1 For any time Basil asked why the sacred scriptures teach that the
Lord, the Word of God, is the Only-begotten before the ages and is with
the Father, Photinus would accept the formula but, attaching a distinction
to it, apply it partly to Christ but partly to the heavenly Word, drawing
the analogy < of human nature >. (2) “For the Father said ‘Let us make
man in our image and after our likeness’ 6 to his Word,” said Photinus. “In
what way? The Word was in the Father, but was not a Son. And ‘The Lord
rained from the Lord’ 7 means the Word in the Father. (3) And scripture
said ‘I saw one like unto a son of man descending on the clouds’ 8 pre-
dictively, and not as though the Son already existed. But because Christ
would be called “Son” after Mary’s time and after coming forth with flesh
when he was born of the Holy Spirit and 9 of Mary,” Audius says that all
this is applied to him by anticipation, from the outset. (4) “But he was not
yet < a Son >, he was a Word like the word in me.” But I have said already
that < he voiced* > opinions partly like those of Paul the Samosatian, but
that he expressed others, and went even farther in his thinking.

3.1 But he too will be exposed as having reached the ultimate degree
of the denial of God, and come to an opinion entirely foreign to eternal

4 Other accounts of this debate are found at Soc. 2.30-43.35; Soz. 4.6.15. Both, however,
make Photinus the loser.

5 Holl: <pvjpn:a> 7tpo|3E|3Xv][iEva; MSS: U7to|3E|3Xr]pEva.

6 Gen 1:26. A doctrine of this kind is condemned by c. 14 of the Anathemas of Sirmium,
Ath. Syn. 27. Cf. the Formula Macrostichus.

7 Gen 19:24. An heretical use of this text is condemned at ch. 17 of the Anathemas of
the creed of Sirmium I (351) (Hahn p. 198). Cf. Ath. Syn. 27.3.

8 Dan 7:13. The doctrine that the Old Testament ascribes divinity to the Son only pre-
dictively is condemned by c. 6 of the Ecthesis Macrostichus of the third Council of Antioch
(Hahn p. 195).

9 ex nvEupaTop dylou xod duo Mapiap.

43 °

PHOTINIANS

life. For if the Son is a latecomer in his Godhead then David is earlier —
or rather, David is even to be preferred over his Maker. For Photinus
meant this < in citing* > the sacred scripture — (2) or rather, in bypassing
it in terms of his erroneous opinion — < and > said, “Even the apostle has
said, ‘The first man is of the earth, earthy, and the second man is from
heaven.’ ” 10 (3) But the speech of the truth contradicts him at once, and
refutes his mind. For the holy apostle said, “man,” and [again], “man,” and
that the first “man,” Adam, is of the earth, while the second is from heaven.
(4) But Christ’s flesh did not descend from heaven, though surely he said
“man” [the second time]; even Photinus admits that it comes from Mary.
Paul is not carelessly saying that flesh is from heaven, but means that the
second man is from heaven, ever since the Word came down from on high
and “dwelt among us,” * 11 as the scripture says.

3.5 Now if the Lord < came from on high* >, he was pre-existent.

< Photinus concedes* >, indeed, < that the scripture says* > that “He which
hath found out every path of knowledge” 12 is with us, but that the actual

< Finder of every path of knowledge is the Word in the Father; and he
wants to prove this from the line following, “Then he appeared on earth.”
But anyone with sense can see* > that the sacred scripture does not doubt

< the Son’s preexistence* >, for “then” 13 and “hath found out every path of
knowledge” imply his preexistence. Then “He appeared on earth” < indi-
cates > his coming incarnation.

3.6 And as to their claim that he has brought the man from heaven,
the apostle does not say < this >. He calls him “man” because of the union
of his human nature [with his Godhead], < but secondly >, because of the
amount of time between Adam and the incarnation. (7) But he says that
he is “from heaven” because the divine Word has come from on high and

< assumed > flesh, as the scripture says, “The Word was made flesh,” 14 —
but not as though he supposes that the Word has come forth from the
Father and been turned into flesh. 15 For this is the explanation that Photi-
nus, with his deluded notion, gave of the passage.

10 1 Cor 15:47.

11 John 1:14.

12 Bar 3:37-38.

13 [1ET& TaUTOi.

14 John 1:14.

15 The Anathemas of the creed of Sirmium I (351 ad) condemn this doctrine at c. 12
(Hahn pp. 197-198).

PHOTINLANS

431

3,8 But if Adam is before the Word is, through whom was Adam him-
self created, and all God’s creatures before him? To whom did the Father
say, “Let us make man?” 16 (g) No one ever gives advice to the word within
him or to his own spoken word; 17 God makes his all-wise statement < of >
the coming creation of man to his immanent, holy Word, to teach us that
the Son is with the Father from the beginning — so that we will not think
that our creator is of recent origin, but that he is always with the Father
before the ages. So John testifies by saying, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God.” 18

4,1 I say too, as the scum himself does, that the Word is from the begin-
ning — but as a Son begotten < of > God. And if he is not God’s Son Photi-
nus’ labor is for nothing, and so is his devotion, hope and purpose; for he
is saying nothing more than the Jews who denied Christ. (2) The Gospel
does not say of him, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
in God,” but, “the Word was with. God.” 19 (3) And it does not say only that
[“The Word] was in God,” but that “The Word was God.” 20 The immanent
word which is always in man and is man’s spoken word cannot be called,
“man,” but must be called, “man’s word.” (4) < But > if, as Photinus says,
there was no Offspring yet [when the Word was “with God”], and if the
divine Word was not yet God’s Son, through whom were all things made?
For the Gospel says, “All things were made through him, and without him
was not anything made.” 21

4,5 But Photinus says, “As man does what he will through his reason, so
the Father made all things by his own reason, through the Word that is in
him.” (6) Then why does the Lord say in the Gospel, “My Father worketh
hitherto; I too work?” 22 However, “My Father worketh; I too work” does
not mean that the Father is not at work in the work of the Son, or that the
Son is separate from him and not at work in the Father’s creation. (7) All
the works there are, have been jointly performed by the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. For all things have been done through the Son by the Father,
and the Son himself has done all things with the Father, and with the Holy

16 Gen 1:26.

17 The Anathemas of the creed of Sirmium I (351 ad) condemn the doctrine that Christ
is either of these, ch. 8, (Hahn p. 197).

18 John 1:1.

19 John 1:1.

20 John 1:1.

21 John 1:3.

22 John 5:17.

432

PHOTINIANS

Spirit. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the
host of them by the Spirit of his mouth.” 23

4,8 And so the Lord spoke with assurance in the Gospel, knowing the
opinion of those who have gone astray, and spoke with divine foreknowl-
edge, and with < an awareness > of the way in which each would deprive
himself of the truth. < For > he told the Jews, “The Son doeth nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” 24 And this is not because he
sees first and then does; he has all things within himself and does what
he will.

5.1 Well, Photinus, how will it come out? Or again, who is in you to
offer us this tare? Who concocted this poison for the world? What gave
you the wicked idea of adopting a blasphemous opinion of your Lord?
(2) Hasn’t Abraham convinced you by speaking to Christ and saying, “Shall
not the judge of all the earth do judgment?” 25 Admit defeat, for the Son
visited him — and not as an utterance, but as a real divine Word.

5,3 And to show you what happens to those who have spent their time
on this, you would-be sage, < hear > how God has closed the subject for
us in the sacred scripture by saying, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and
Gomorra fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” 26 (4) And he
didn’t say, “The Lord’s word,” but, “The Lord, from the Lord,” just as David
says, “The Lord said unto my Lord.” 27 And to < show > that the Son does
not date only from the incarnation, he also says of his original [begetting],
“From the belly before the morning star 1 begot thee.” 28

5,5 And no one will accept what you say of the Holy Spirit, you wind-
bag and useless busybody! The Holy Spirit is neither “greater” nor “less;”
“Who hath required this at your hands?” 29 says scripture. (6) But the holy
Word himself confounds you; to acknowledge the legitimacy of his God-
head the Lord says of the Holy Spirit, “that proceeded from the Father and
receiveth of me.” 30

6.1 And how many other proof texts are there? But since everyone
can see that your nonsense is erroneous and untrue, and that it will be

23 Ps 32:6.

24 John 5:19.

25 Gen 18:25. Chapter 15 of the Anathemas of Sirmium condemns anyone who says that
the Son did not come to Abraham. Cf. ch. 6 of the Antiochene Symbol.

26 Gen 19:24.

27 Ps 109:1.

28 Ps 109:3.

29 Isa 1:12.

30 Cf. John 15:26; 16:14.

MARCELLIANS

433

detected not only by the wise but even by those who have a little knowl-
edge of the text of the sacred scripture, and this frees me from the need
of a great many proof texts or a long refutation — your tall tale and your
wicked belief are easily refutable — (2) that what I have said
about you will do. I shall leave you behind as though I had squashed
< some kind of > feeble bug with no strength that had grown up from the
earth, or a worm or a maggot, with the foot of reason and the truth of the
Word of God. (3) For this fool’s sect has already been dispersed 31 in a short
time. Calling on God as usual, I shall go on to the rest.

Against Marcellians} 52, but 72 of the Series

1,1 In his own turn Marcellus was born — all these people came at
once — at Ancyra. Still < alive > till our day, he died about two years ago. * 1 2
(2) He too caused a division in the church from the start of his career,
and gave a slight adumbration of this when — due to the Arians’ irritation
with him over his anti-Arian pamphlet, 3 if you please — he was compared
with Sabellius and Navatus. For this reason he is also attacked by certain
< orthodox > for partly believing, as I said, in Sabellius’ nonsense.

Some have said in his defense, however, that this was not so; they
maintained that he had lived rightly and held orthodox opinions. There
has therefore been a great deal of controversy about him. (3) His secret
thoughts are known only to God. But either because they did not know
his mind, or because they were giving his actual ideas, his converts and
pupils would not confess the three entities, which is what the truth is —
that there is one Godhead and one Glory, a co-essential Trinity with no
differentiation of its own glory. It is a perfect Trinity and one Godhead,
one power, one essence, and neither an identity nor a subordination.

1,4 But when he wanted in the worst way to prove his point to cer-
tain persons, he showed that < his > opinions were like those of Sabellius;
hence this group too is refuted like a sect and counted as one. But again,

31 Drexl and MSS dp okiyov /povov, Holl sip okiyov iXBouaoi.

1 Much of Epiphanius’ information comes from Marcellus' Epistle to Julius of Rome,
2, 1-3,1, fragments of Marcellus’ writings preserved in George of Laodicea’s refutation of
Acacius of Galatia, 6, 1-9, 9, and the creed issued at Ancyra by Marcellus’ disciples (n,i-
12,5). But Epiphanius also uses oral sources. 4,4 recounts a conversation between himself
and Athanasius.

2 376 or 377 ad. Cf. 66,2.

3 Holl to Xoyiov, MSS tou Xoyiayou.

434

MARCELLIANS

I subjoin a copy of the exposition of his argument that Marcellus wrote,
(5) supposedly in his own defense, to Julius, the blessed bishop of Rome.
From his defense [itself], and the document, it will be evident that his
beliefs differed from the true faith. For if he did not think otherwise, why
did he decide to offer a defense — if words which were issued by him were
not right and disturbed certain people, and had brought < him > to this
defense? Very well, here is the copy:

A Copy of a Letter of Marcellus, Whom the Council Deposed for Heresy

2,1 Greetings in Christ from Marcellus to his most blessed fellow worker,
Julius.

Some who were formerly convicted of heresy, and whom I confuted at the
Council of Nlcaea, have dared to write your Reverence that my opinions are
neither orthodox nor in agreement with the church, thus endeavoring to
have the charge against themselves transferred to me. (2) I therefore felt that
I must come to Rome and suggest that you send for those who have written
against me, so that I could prove, in a direct confrontation, that what they
have written against me is untrue, and further, that they persist even now in
their former error, and have dared dreadful ventures against the churches
of God and us who head them.

2.3 But they have chosen not to appear, though you have sent presbyters
to them and I have spent a year and three full months at Rome. On the eve
of my departure, therefore, I feel that, with all sincerity and by my own hand,
I must submit a written statement to you of the faith which I have learned
and been taught from the sacred scriptures and remind you of the evils they
have spoken, to acquaint you with the words with which, for their hearers’
deception, they choose to conceal the truth.

2.4 For they say that the Son of the almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is
not his true and actual Word, but that God has a different word and a differ-
ent wisdom and power. This person whom he has made is called Word, wis-
dom and power; and since they hold this opinion they say that he is another
entity, separate from the Father. (5) They further declare in their writings
that the Father is prior to the Son, < and > that the Son is not truly a son
[begotten] of God. Even though they say he is “of God,” they mean that he
is “of God” just as all things are. And moreover, they dare to say that there
was a time when he did not exist, and that he is a creature and a product of
creation, and so separate him from the Father. It is my conviction, then, that
persons who say these things are strangers to the catholic church.

MARCELLIANS

435

2.6 Now I, following the sacred scriptures, believe that there is one God
and his only-begotten Son, the Word, who is always with the Father and
has never had a beginning, but is truly of God — not created, not made, but
forever existent, forever reigning with God and his Father, “of whose king-
dom, ” as the apostle testifies, “there shall be no end. ” 4

2.7 This Son, this power, this wisdom, this true and actual Word of God,
our Lord Jesus Christ, is a power inseparable from God, through whom all
created things have been made as the Gospel testifies, “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things
were made through him, and without him was not anything made.” 5 (8) Fie
is the Word of whom Luke the Evangelist testifies, “Inasmuch as they have
delivered, unto us, which were eye witnesses and ministers of the Word.’’ 6 7 Of
him David also said, “My heart hath burst forth with a good Word.” 1 (g) So
our Lord Jesus Christ has taught us through the Gospel by saying “I came
forth from the Father and am come." 8 At the end of days he descended for our
salvation, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and assumed manhood.

3.1 Therefore I believe in one God the Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his
only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the
Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried, on the third day rose
again from the dead, ascended into the heavens and is seated at the right
hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resur-
rection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.

3.2 I have Learned from the sacred scriptures that the Godhead of the
Father and of the Son cannot be differentiated. For if one separates the Son,
that is, the Word, from Almighty God, he must either suppose that there are
two Gods, which is agreed to be untrue to the sacred scripture, or else confess
that the Word is not God, which likewise is plainly untrue to the right faith,
since the Evangelist says, “and the Word was God. ” 9 (3) But I understand per-
fectly that the Father’s power, the Son, is indistinguishable and inseparable
[from him]. For the Savior himself our Lord Jesus Christ, says, “The Father

4 Luke 1:33.

5 John 1:1-3.

6 Luke 1:2.

7 Ps 44:2.

8 John 8:42.

9 John 1:1.

436

MARCELLIANS

is in me and. I am in the Father, ” 10 “I and my Father are one, ” n and, “He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father ." 12

3.4 This faith, which I have both learned from the sacred scriptures and
been taught by godly parents, I preach in God’s church and have now written
down for you, keeping a copy for myself. (5) I also request that you enclose a
copy of it in your letter to the bishops, so that none of those who do not know
me and my accusers well will be deceived by paying attention to what they
have written. Farewell!

The End

4.1 Those who can read this document, and those who can understand
exactly what it says, < must > say whether it is all right. And if it is wrong,
they must decide this for themselves. I do not wish to say anything more
than I know and have been told. (2) For even though the document is
right on the subject, those who read it and hear it read will suspect in their
turn that Marcellus was not obliged to defend himself for nothing, or for
no good reason, or because of < enmity > towards him — not unless he had
belched out words that disturbed some and forced him to undertake his
own defense because of things he had said.

4,3 For it may be that, even after falling into error, he defended and
corrected himself with this document. Or he may have dressed his words
up with the document to hide what he had said, and avoid exclusion by
deposition from the college and order of bishops. At any rate, this is what
I have learned about Marcellus.

4.5 However, I once asked the blessed Pope Athanasius myself how he
felt about this Marcellus. He neither defended him nor, on the other hand,
showed hostility towards him, but merely told me with a smile that he
had not been far from rascality, but that he felt he had cleared himself.

5.1 But I shall cite the statements which some have found in Marcellus’
own writings and felt reprehensible, and so have inveighed against him
and written replies of their own. (2) Their replies to him < were brought to
light* > by others in turn, for purposes of refutation, since those who had
written in reply to him but later changed their minds < preferred to con-
ceal what they had written earlier* >. < Hence >, in refutation of Acacius,
these people issued Marcellus’ statements and made them known in
their own writings, during the disputes between Acacius, Basil of Galatia,

10 John 10:38.

11 John 10:30.

12 John 14:9.

MARCELLIANS

437

and George of Laodicea. (3) It was Acacius who, to refute Marcellus, had
quoted passages from Marcellus’ writings. to show
by omitting none of the truth that I neither despise anything that may
make for the correction of persons who try to prove untruths, nor wish to
agree with such persons. And here are the passages from Acacius’ argu-
ment against Marcellus:

The following citations are made because of Marcellus:

6.1 After his misinterpretation of the comments on Proverbs, Marcellus
wrote the things which follow and others like them, speaking unrighteously
of God and lifting up his horn on high. Past the middle of the book he again
quotes the words of Asterius, which say, (2) “For the Father is another, who
has begotten of himself the only-begotten Word and the firstborn of all cre-
ation — Unique begetting Unique, Perfect begetting Perfect, King begetting
King, Lord begetting Lord, God begetting God, the exact image of his essence,
will, power and glory."

6.3 He quotes these words but objects to the “exact image” — that is, to
the distinct, clear impress of God’s essence, and the rest. Calling this notion
a bad one, he appends his dissatisfaction and at this point writes: (4) “These
words plainly reveal his poor opinion of Godhead. How can One who was
begotten as Lord and God, as he himself has said earlier, still be an “image”
of God? An image of God is one thing and God is another. If he is an image
he is not Lord or God, but an image of a Lord and God. But if he is really Lord
and really God, the Lord and God cannot be the image of a Lord and God.”

6,5 And next, “He does not allow that he is any of the things he has men-
tioned; he calls him the ‘image’ of all these things. Very well, if he is the image
of an essence, he cannot be self-existence. If he is the image of a will, he
cannot be absolute will. If he is the image of power, he cannot be power; if of
glory, he cannot be glory. For an image is not an image of itself but an image
of something else. ”

7.1 You commended these words earlier, Marcellus, at the beginning of
your book. But now, by denying that the God of God, the Word, is the Son and
is Unique begotten of Unique, Perfect begotten of Perfect, you have plainly
betrayed your poor opinion of the Godhead . (2) You ought to have cut your
profane tongue out for understanding the image of the Great King <to be>
lifeless and without Godhead, will, power, glory and essence, saying a word
against the Lord, and dooming to death the soul that has committed such
impiety.

7.3 For by limiting the image of God to lifelessness, <you are saying >
that it is neither Lord, God, essence, will, power nor glory. You would have
it be a motionless image of these things and make it an inert, lifeless image

438

MARCELLIANS

set outdoors, as inert < as though > it were the product of mere human skill.
You will not have God’s image be a living image of a living God, will not have
the image of an essence be an essence, or have the exact image of will, power
and glory be will, power and glory. (4) But “exact” does not mean the same
as “unoriginate;” it means that the divinity, and every action of the image is
expressly and precisely like the divinity, and every action, of the Father.

7,5 And later [Acacius says], “Your lying < lips > should be put to silence
that speak unrighteously against God, haughtily and with contempt .” 13
(6) For even though you do not care for this and now prefer something else,
the Father begot the Only-begotten as Unique begets Unique. The Son did
not make his appearance because of Valentinus’ aeons, but was begotten
of a sole Father; and “Perfect begot Perfect." For there is no imperfection in
the Father, and therefore there is none in the Son; the Son’s perfection is the
legitimate offspring of the Father’s perfection and more than perfection.

And “A King begot a King.” (7) It is orthodox doctrine that God rules
< before the > [rule] of the Son, who was begotten before the ages and is a
King who himself has a ruler; through him the rest are ruled, and he grate-
fully acknowledges his subjection [to the Father]. The Father has not begot-
ten a subject but a King “whose kingdom hath neither beginning of days nor
length of life .” 14 For his rank is not a thing external to him but belongs to his
essence, as is the case with the Father who begot him. And therefore scripture
says, “Of his kingdom there shall be no end .’’ 13

7,8 But we confess that “Lord begets Lord” in this way, and “God begets
God.’’ And in a word, we say he is the image of an essence, a will, a power
and a glory — not inert and dead but essential, possessed of a will, power-
ful and glorious. (9) For power does not beget powerlessness, but absolute
power. Glory does not beget the absence of glory, but absolute glory. Will
does not beget the absence of will, but absolute will. Essence does not beget
the absence of essence, but self-existence.

The divine Word is therefore an image, a living wisdom, subsistent, an
active Word and Son, himself invested with being. This < was > the image
“in which” God “daily rejoiced, when he delighted in his completion of the
world .’ 46 (10) But since you, Marcellus, have “denied these things before
men, you will be denied," by that image itself, “before the Father which is

13 Ps 30:19.

14 Heb 7:3.

15 Luke 1:33.

16 Prov 8:30-31.

MARCELLIANS

439

in heaven .” 17 You will also, however, be denied before the church which is
under heaven, and which has written of you in all parts of the world, “Hear
the word of the Lord, write of this man, A man rejected; for no ruler, still
seated upon David’s throne, shall grow any more from his seed .” 18

8.1 And later, after Marcellus has mentioned the words of Asterius, he
goes on, You quote these words and persist in your denial of our Savior’s
image and essence; of his only-begotten sonship to the Father and his status
as firstborn of all creation; of the uniqueness of the Only-begotten, his perfec-
tion begotten of the Perfect, his kingship begotten of the King, his lordship
begotten of the Lord, and his Godhead begotten of God. In a word, [you per-
sist in] your denial of the exact image of the essence, will, power and glory
of God. (2) You “deny this before men” in words of no little import — ” and
therefore will be denied before his Father” 19 — and write next to this, "These
words clearly demonstrate his poor opinion of the Godhead of the Father
and the Son. ’’But your denial of them has plainly exposedyour perverse and
mean heresy with regard to the Godhead and essence of Christ.

9.1 And later he adds some words of Marcellus’: His next addition is
worthless: “He will not allow him to be any of the things which he has men-
tioned, for he says that he is the ‘image’ of all these. Very well, if he is the
image of an essence, he cannot be self-existence. If he is the image of a will,
he cannot be absolute will. If he is the image of power, he cannot be power;
and if of glory, he cannot be glory. For an image is not its own image, but
an image of something else.” (2) But these remarks are worthless, Marcellus,
and lies. When Asterius says, “A King begot a King; a Lord begot a Lord;
God begot God,” he would have him be everything that he has mentioned.
And he destroys your lifeless image, which in your view is a product of mere
human skill (3) He is saying that the Son is a living image of all these and
the impress of the image of a living Begetter, and is calling him self-existence,
the image of an essence; absolute will, the image of will; absolute power, the
image of power; absolute glory, the image of glory — and not its own glory,
but the glory of another image.

9,4 But by not confessing that the Son is God of God, light of light or power
of power, you do not let the Son be God, light, power, essence, will or glory.
In sum, the [lifeless] body [of your “image"] impiously does away with these

17 Cf. Matt 10:32.

18 Jer 22:29-30.

19 Cf. Matt 10:32.

440

MARCELLIANS

things, together with the Son . 20 (5) You also deny that “ ‘The Word was God ,” 21
and either call him God’s Son in name only, or else in the sense that [any]
man [can be called God’s son] — making God the begetter of something dif-
ferent from himself who begets the Son by adoption, as in “I have begotten
sons and raised them up, ” 22 “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, ” 23 and,
“Ascribe to the Lord, 0 sons of God. ” 24

9,6 Thus, in saying that the Son is the exact image of the Father’s essence,
power, will and glory, Asterius as good as says that the Father’s attributes
inhere in the Son, and that what is conceived of the Father is impressed in or
given to the Son, and is not different from him. (7) Thus he would have the
Son be everything he has said. For he does not take the “image” as a painted
image, or introduce a third artist to paint the qualities of someone different
from the Father in some other place, and call this a “Son." (8) For whether
intentionally or not, this is what you are saying [with your] “Very well, if he
is the image of an essence, he cannot be self existence; and if of a will, he
cannot be absolute will ”

For in our view, if he is the living image of an essence, he can be, and is
self existence. And thus we call the image of an essence an essence, because
of its most faithful reproduction of its life and activity. And we call the image
of a will, a will, “the angel of a great counsel ”; 25 and the image of power
and glory, power and glory, (g) And texts which support this are, “For as
the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself ,’’ 26 and, “As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them,
< even so the Son quickeneth whom he will >.” 27 For the [combination of the
words] “as” and “thus” implies the exact reproduction of the portraiture and
likeness which are proper to an image.

10,1 And a little later, For the divine Word who provides life, beauty and
form for others, is not to be conceived of as himself without life, beauty and
form, or dead or non-existent. He is informed with the Father’s attributes,
and not as though he were different, with attributes different from the form.
His attributes inhere in his existence, and his existence in his attributes.
(2) But because the image — someone else’s image as you yourself agree, and

20 Holl toO uioo, MSS toutcov.

21 John 1:1.

22 Isa 1:2.

23 Rom 8:15.

24 Ps 28:1.

25 Isa 9:5.

26 John 5:26.

27 John 5:21.

MARCELLIANS

441

not its own — possesses the attributes of its original, it displays otherness, but
otherness as though it were likeness. For as “the image of the invisible God ,” 28
which it is, this image is not an image of itself, but an image of another
person.

10.3 In motion, activity, power, will and glory, then, the Son is the image
of the Father, a living image of a living God — not a lifeless or inert image,
which has its being in something else and is drawn on something else, but
is not in motion in and through itself. And it is an exact image, though the
exactitude makes it, not the Father, but a Son in the exact likeness [of the
Father].

The end of the excerpt from Acacius.

10.4 However, orthodox persons, brethren of mine and confessors, say
that they have received a confessional statement in defense of Marcellus’
faith from some of the disciples he left behind him. I publish its subtleties
here, since I do not understand it myself. Here is the copy:

A Written Statement of the Faith of Marcellus’ Disciples

11, r Greetings in the Lord from the presbyters ofAncyra in Galatia, Photi-
nus, Eustathius, another Photinus, Sigerius, the deacon Hyginus, the sub-
deacon Heraclides, the lector Elpidius, and the proctor Cyriacus, to the most
reverend and holy bishops in Diocaesarea who have been banished for the
orthodox faith in our Savior Jesus Christ, Eubgius, Adelphius, Alexander,
Ammonias, Harpocration, Isaac, Isidore, Annubio, Pitimus, Euphratius and
Aaron . 29

11,2 While we were staying with your Reverences our countrymen, during
the visit we fittingly made you, we were asked by your Holinesses how we hold
the faith that is in us. Both because we approve of your solicitous inquiry, and
particularly because those who so choose are spreading certain lies about
us to no purpose, (3) we feel we must assure you, not only through the let-
ter of fellowship your Holinesses have been shown which was addressed to
us all by the thrice blessed Pope Athanasius, but also through this written
confession of ours, (4) that we neither believe, nor have believed, anything
other than the worldwide and church-wide creed determined at Nicaea.
We offer this confession because we can assure you 30 that this is our belief,
(5) and we condemn those who dare to say that < the Son or > the Holy Spirit
is a creature; and the Arian heresy, and the heresies of Sabellius, Photinus

28 Col 1:15.

29 These presbyters are referred to at Theodoret H. E. 4.22.35; Basil Ep. 265; Facundus v.
Hermiane pro Defensione Trium Capitum 42; Palladius Hist. Laus. 46.

30 Holl, tentatively SuvapiEvoi iipcii; 7iXv]po9opEtv, MSS SuvapiEi touto cppovEiv.

442

MARCELLIANS

and Paul the Samosatian; and those who deny that the Holy Trinity consists
of three infinite, subsistent, co-essential, co-eternal and absolute Persons.
(6) We also condemn those who say that the Son is an expansion, contrac-
tion or activity of the Father, and those who do not confess that the divine
Word, the Son of God, is before the ages and co-eternal with the Father, and
is subsistent, absolute Son and God.

12.1 If anyone says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the
same, let him be anathema.

If anyone attributes a beginning or end to the Son and Word of God or to
his kingdom, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the Son or the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father, and
does not confess that the Son of God was begotten of the Father’s essence
before anyone can conceive of it, let him be anathema.

12.2 As to the incarnation of the divine Word, the only-begotten Son of
God, we confess that < the > Son of God has also become man without sin, by
the assumption of all of human nature, that is, of a rational and intellectual
soul and human flesh.

12.3 We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things vis-
ible and invisible, and in one Lord fesus Christ the Son of God, begotten as
the Only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the Father’s essence, God of God,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, co-essential with the
Father, through whom all things were made in heaven and on earth;

Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and
made man, suffered and rose the third day, ascended into the heavens, and
will come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.

12.4 But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God did
not exist, and that he did not exist before his begetting, and that he was
made from nothing or that he is of another substance or essence, or that he
is mutable or alterable, them the catholic and apostolic church condemns.

12.5 h Photinus, presbyter of the catholic church at Ancyra, believe and
hold as is written above.

, Eustathius, presbyter of the catholic church at Ancyra, believe and
hold as is written above.

I, Photinus, presbyter of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

I, Sigerius, presbyter of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

I, Hyginus, deacon of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

I, Heraclides, sub-deacon of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

I, Elpidius, lector of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

I, Cyriacus, proctor of the same, believe and hold as is written above.

SEMI-ARIANS

443

12,6 This is what they wrote to the confessors and fathers. If the wise
can take it to be a commendable statement it should be categorized as
such. On the other hand, if there are accidental unorthodoxies even there,
in the argument they use in their actual defense of themselves, the schol-
arly, once more, should put it in that category. But since I have given all
the above information about Marcellus, I shall pass him by in his turn and
go on to investigate the rest.

Against Semi-Arians 1 33, but 73 of the series

1,1 By God’s power we have torn Arius’ abominable doctrines up, which
he originally belched out like a man overtaken with drunkenness, and the
doctrines of his successors — I mean Photinus, and Marcellus too during
the short time in which he seemed to be shaken. May Arius’ pupils be set
straight, if indeed they can be!

But now that, with the word of God “which is sharper than any two-
edged sword,” 2 we have cut down the tares which sprouted from Arius
himself, let us survey the tangled woodland which has grown up from
Arius, to see how some are halfway Arians, (2) who repudiate his name
but adopt the man and his heresy. By some pretense they falsely put on
a different mask, as the acting of stage performers is a sham, and they
conceal their faces with different masks, and inside the masks recite the
shameful, boozy lines of the comedy — a new comedy, or the myths of the
ancients, since their poets used to do the same. (3) Thus, though these
people would like to mislead the simple, they are the same as Arius and
the Arian Nuts — on the surface, in their behavior, and in their heresy.
(4) But in the desire to pretty up their perverse doctrine, as a deceitful
piece of flattery they call the Son of God a creature but cheaply add, “We
do not mean a creature like any other creature or an offspring like any
other offspring” — as a piece of deception and to do the Son of God a favor,
as well as to soothe those who are frightened by this expression. And yet
they altogether reject the homoousion supposedly because it is untrue to
the sacred scripture! (5) I have discussed this with extreme thoroughness
in the Sect about Arius.

1 The literary sources of this Sect are the Epistles of Basil of Ancyra (2,1-11,11) and
George of Laodicea (12,1-22,8); the encyclical of the Council of Seleucia, 359 ad (25-26);
and the inaugural homily of Melitius at Antioch, 360 ad (29-33). All of these are quoted.

2 Heh 4:12.

444

SEMI-ARIANS

But to suggest a word similar to “homoousion” they say — I mean the
followers of Basil and George, the leaders of this Semi-Arian sect — “We do
not say, ‘homoousion,’ but ‘homoeousion.’ ” (6) These were the members
of the Council < at Ancyra > 3 4 who separated from the sect of the Arian
Nuts itself — their leader, Basil of Ancyra, and George of the Laodicea by
Antioch in Daphne, or Coele-Syria.

1.7 Their view of the Holy Spirit too is the same as that of the Pneuma-
tomachi. [In the case of the Spirit] they no longer begin as they do with
the Son, with a sort of shame or with a word expressive of hesitancy. They
are ashamed to say that the Son is altogether a creature, though this is
what they think, but from fear of men they add the homoeousion, and the
doctrine that the Son is a creature < but not > like any other. But with the
Holy Spirit, as I said, they do not begin hesitantly, but like ravening dogs
pitilessly declare him a creature in every respect, and thus also maintain
that he is different from the Father and the Son.

1.8 And lest it be said that I accuse anyone falsely, I shall cite a letter
here as each of them wrote it — Basil, one, but George of Laodicea together
with Basil and his companions, another. And here are the letters.

2.1 Greetings in the Lord from the holy council, assembled from various
provinces at Ancyra at the approach of Easter, to the most honored Masters,
our colleagues in Phoenicia and elsewhere, who are of one mind with us.

2.2 After the trial of the church’s faith, as though by fire, by the ordeals
for the faith which took place in our midst; and < after > the proceedings at
Constantinople because of Marcellas, A and the issuance of the creed at the
council gathered for the dedication of the church in Antioch 5 and afterwards
at Sardica , 6 and the faith that bloomed again there — and further, after the
proceedings at Sirmium 7 with regard to Photinus (3) and still further, after
the explanations we issued of each article of the creed when questioned by
those who differed with the easterners at Sardica , 8 it is our prayer that we

3 Held in 358 ad See below at 2,1.

4 The Synod of Constantinople, 336 ad, confirmed Arius’ deposition and condemned
Marcellus for a too close identification of the Word with the Father. Cf. Soc. 1.36.8; Soz.
2.33; Eusebius Contra Marcellum 2.4.29.

5 The Second Concil of Antioch, 341 ad, issued four creeds. Basil is probably referring to
the second, which calls the Son the “exact image of the Godhead, essence, will, power and
glory of the Father,” Hahn pp. 184-186; Ath. Syn. 23.3; Soc. 2.10.76; Hilary De Synodis 29.

6 The Council of Sardica, 343 ad, split into a council of western and a council of eastern
bishops; the easterns reissued the fourth creed of Antioch with anathemas added.

7 The first Council of Sirmium, 351 ad, condemned Photinus.

8 Probably the Ecthesis Macrostichus, an extensive explanation of the creed of the east-
erns at Sardica, which was presented before the emperor Constantius at the third Council

SEMI-ARLANS

445

may rest at last and, with all stumbling blocks removed and the church from
east to west united under the pious rule of our master Constantius, be at
peace and attend to the divine services.

2,4 But the devil, it seems, does not abandon his utmost endeavors to
foment apostasy in every way through his peculiar vessels, <as> was fore-
told by the Lord and, correspondingly, declared by the holy apostle for the
protection of the faithful. (5) For by devising rebellions against the faith of
the church he is even now < attempting* > to claim certain individuals for
his own “with a form of godliness, ” 9 and through them has invented < nov-
elties* > and “profane new babblings” 10 against the legitimacy of the only-
begotten Son of God.

When we heard formerly that some were running about in Antioch, but
also in Alexandria, and further, in Lydia or Asia, and planting sparks of
impiety in the souls of the simple, (6) we hoped that, due to the audacity of
the impiety and < the > extent of their shamelessness, the heresy they have
invented had been quenched, and the evil suppressed, by the championship
of the Masters, our colleagues, in each locality.

2,7 But since persons from the places aforesaid next arrived, and persons
from Illyria, and informed us that the inventors of this evil are zealous in the
venture of doing harm to a larger number and infecting them with a leaven
of wickedness, we could brook no further delay. (8) Since, moreover, we have
read the letter, copies of which we subjoin, of our like-minded colleague,
George of the church of Laodicea, * 11 and since we respect the testimonies of
those who have witnessed to us before God, (g) as many of us have gathered
as could do so given the season, the approach of the holy day of Easter —
the winter was a hindrance to many, as they have indicated by letter — and
hastened to set forth the norm of the faith in the following form. (10) As far
as the remaining points are concerned, <we are in agreement* > with the
council at Antioch, as we have said, and the creed the Council at Sirmium
accepted 12 which was issued at the dedication as well as at Sardica, and with
the arguments that were presented at Sirmium. < It is our purpose > to give
an accurate description of the catholic church’s faith in the holy Trinity, as

of Antioch in 345. It contains the formula, “like the Father in all respects,” which Basil’s
letter emphasizes. Cf. Ath. Syn. 26.6; Soc. H. E.2.9.11.

9 2 Tim 3:5.

10 1 Tim 6:20.

11 This letter is thought to be lost. It is not the letter given at Soz. 4.13.2-3, which says
nothing about Laodicea, but reports the situation at Antioch.

12 The fourth Creed of the second Council of Antioch (341 ad), reissued in 341 by the
easterns at Sardica, and in 351 by the first Council of Sirmium.

446

SEMI-ARIANS

we said, and of the form of the innovation besides, replying to it only as the
Spirit has permitted us.

2,11 And because you, most honored Sirs and colleagues, have stood firm
in the faith which has been handed down to us from our fathers, and because
our faith, as we believe, is in accord withyours, we urge you, on reading this,
to append your signatures. Thus those who dare to introduce this impiety will
be assured that we have accepted, and guard as our inheritance, the faith

< of the > fathers, < transmitted > from the time of the apostles, through the
intervening generations, even to us. (12) Hence they will either be ashamed
and submit to correction, or persist in error and be expelled from the church,

< for > preparing, by their own efforts, the falling away for the son of iniquity
who threatens to venture “to sit even in the temple of God .” 13

3,1 Our faith is in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. For so our Lord
Jesus Christ taught his disciples, “Go make disciples of all nations, baptiz-
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit .” 14

(2) Therefore we who are born again into this faith should have a godly
understanding of the meanings of the names. For he did not say, “Baptize
them in the name of the Incorporeal and the Incarnate," or, “of the Immor-
tal and of Him who knew death,” or, “of the Ingenerate and the Generate ,” 15
but “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(3) And thus, since we also hear < the > names in nature, and < a father * >
there < always begets a son like himself * >, 16 we may understand the “Father”
to be the cause of an essence like his. And when we hear the name, “Son, ” we
may understand that the Son is like the Father whose Son he is.

3,4 We have therefore believed in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, not in
a creator and a creature. For “creator and creature” are one thing but “father
and son “are another, since these two concepts differ in meaning. (5) If I say,
“creature, ” I must first say, “creator;" < and if I say * >, “son, ” I must first say,
“father. ” But even the term, “Son, ” is not quite right * >, since it is taken from
physical things, and [used] because of the passions and effluents of flesh
and blood fathers and sons. < If we exclude these, however * >, it does plainly
mean the existence of the incorporeal Son of an incorporeal Father. (6) Thus
<our Lord refrained from putting the term * >, “creature, ” [into the baptismal

13 2 Thes 2:14.

14 Matt 28:19.

15 Such descriptions of the Father and the Son are termed inadequate at Ath. Nic. 31.3;
Or. I C. Ar. 32; Or. II C. Ar. 41; 42.

16 Athanasius uses a similar argument, but in favor of the homoousion, at Ath. Or. I
C. Ar. 26.

SEMI-ARIANS

447

formula], because it entailed a notion of something corporeal. And since the
creature the Father makes < is a “son” >, < God called > him “Son” by borrow-
ing from the notions of “creator" and “creature” only the creator’s impassibil-
ity with respect to the creature, and the creature’s stability — the result of the
impassibility — and its being as the > creator intended, (7) and has plainly
taught us the whole notion of the Father and the Son from [ the parallels of]
a physical father and son, < and > a physical creator and creature.

For with its externality eliminated from “creature," its materiality, and all
else that the name, physical “creature, ” implies, all that remains of “creature”
is the notion of impassibility — I mean the impassibility of its creator — and
the notion of the creature, and of its being as its creator intended, is com-
plete. (8) If, again, we then eliminate the rest from the notion of “creator" and
“creature, ” and take only the notion that a creature is made by an impassible
creator and is perfect, stable and as its creator intended, it follows — since we
have been taught above all to believe in a Father and a Son — that as ortho-
dox Christians believe, we form one particular idea of the terms, “Father”
and “Son.”

4,1 Thus if, in addition to these things, we eliminate anything that has
to do with passion or effluent, < and so > understand that the Father is
the Father of a Son, and that the Son was not physically engendered and
brought to maturity by natural physical things which, as is characteristic of
physical things, are constantly made to grow and decay, only the notion of
likeness will be left. (2) For as we shall say once more of a creature that >,
when < all physical features > were eliminated, its creator’s impassibility was
left, and a < notion > of the creature’s perfection, of its being as its creator
intended, and of its stability, so we shall say of the Father and the Son that,
with all physical features eliminated, only the generation of a living being
of like essence will be left— for every “father” is understood to be the father
of an essence like his. (3) If, however, along with the elimination of all other
physical notions from the terms, “Father, “and “Son,” the one which enables
us to think of the Father as the cause > of a living being of like essence is also
eliminated, our faith will no longer be in a Father and a Son but in a creator
and a creature. And the terms, < “Father,” and “Son,” > will be unnecessary,
since they contribute nothing of themselves. And thus, as God, he will be a
creator < but > in no way at all a Father.

4,4 For it is plain from natural considerations that the “Father” does not
mean the Father of an activity but of an essence like himself, whose subsis-
tence corresponds with a particular activity. God has many activities, and is
understood to be a creator from another activity whereby he is the creator of
heaven, earth and everything in them, and of things invisible as well But as

448

S EM I-ARIAN S

the Father of the Only-begotten he is seen to be, not a creator but a Father
who has begotten [a Son].

4,5 But if, from motives of reverence, < someone > removes the legitimate
notion of the relationship of the Father and the Son because of his idea of the
sufferings of physical paternity and sonship, and his fear that the Incorpo-
real may suffer some effect in begetting unless his Offspring and the effects
of physical paternity and sonship are incomplete, whatever he says, he will
be saying that the Son is another creature, and never that the Son is a son.
(6) Even if he says he surpasses [other creatures] in greatness as heaven
surpasses a mountain or hill, he will regard him as < being one > 17 — even
though he is thought to excel in greatness, in utility as the first creature
to be made, or as serving for the creation of the rest ; 18 even so he will not
remove him from the category of creatures. (7) For just as taking a coal
from the altar with tongs rather than with the hand itself is the same thing,
even < though > the bronze work, the overlaying of the iron, is done with
the hand — -for both the tongs and the iron that is overlaid by the hand are
creatures — even so, the One through whom all creatures were made will not
be different from the creatures unless he is a Son, as the natural concept [of
“son"] suggests. If he is made, he will be the first of created things and will
become the maker’s instrument by which the creator makes all things.

5,1 And let no one ingeniously derive the notion of “Father” in the proper
sense, and “Son” in the proper sense, from the things more commonly called
“sons, ” since in this sense there will be many sons of God — < as > when scrip-
ture says, “I have begotten sons and brought them up, and they have rebelled
against me ;" 19 “Have we not all one Father ?” 20 “As many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, which were bom, not of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” 21 — and also of inani-
mate objects, “Who hath begotten drops of dew ?’' 22 (2) These texts will prove
instead, from the < meaning > common [to all of them], that the Son is not
a son just as these things are not, but that, being a creature like them, he
shares the mere title of “son.”

5,3 But the church has believed that God is not only a creator of crea-
tures — Jews and Greeks understand this — but is also the Father of an Only-

17 Athanasius himself uses this argument at Or. II C. Ar. 2of.

18 So Arius in his Thaleia; Or. 1 Ath. C. Ar., 26.

19 Isa 1:2.

20 Mai 2:10.

21 John 1:12-13.

22 Job 38:28.

SEMI-ARIANS

449

begotten. He possesses not only his creative activity whereby he is understood
to be a creator, but a generative activity peculiar and unique to himself,
whereby we understand him to be the Father of a unique Offspring. (4) It is
to teach us this that the blessed Paul writes, “For this cause I bow my knees
unto the Father, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named .” 2,3
< For as fathers on earth are termed “fathers" > because they have sons in
the likeness of their own essences, so we name the One for whom the fathers
on earth were named “fathers" in accordance with their essences, “Father in
the heavens"— for he surely has the Son begotten of him in the likeness of
his own essence.

5,5 And the notion of “sons” which applies to things that are loosely and
equivocally so called cannot fit the Only-begotten. For as a “box tablet" prop-
erly speaking means a tablet made of boxwood, but more commonly and in
the colloquial sense of the word, a tablet made of lead, bronze or any other
material < is called * > a “box tablet” after the boxwood tablet, < so only the
Son begotten of the Father is properly termed “Son of God,” while the others
are so named in the loose sense of the word. * > (6) Nor < is he named “son”
in the sense of, “Who hath begotten drops of dew?” Properly speaking, God
did not “beget” dew* >, that is, not in actuality; here the word for begetting
an offspring is colloquially applied to a created object. And he is not called
“Son” in the sense of, “I have begotten sons and brought them up”; here too
the term is loosely applied, because of [God’s] good will and respect towards
them. (7) Nor is he called “Son” < in the sense of>, “He gave them power to
become sons of God”; this too is derived < from > the idea of virtuous cre-
ation in his own image. The Only-begotten is < not > to be understood as
Son in these senses but in the proper one, as an only Son begotten of an only
Father, in the essential likeness of the Father whose Son he is called, and is
understood to be.

6,1 But suppose that, from the incapacity of his reasoning powers, some-
one refuses to accept this line of reasoning on the grounds that the Father
must be subject to some passion, division or effluence if he is to be conceived
as this sort of father — and has [thus] mutilated the godly conception of the
Father and the Son, and requires reasons for it. (2) He must be required to
provide reasons why God is crucified, and why “the foolishness” of the procla-
mation of the Gospel — [called “foolishness”] because of its unreasonableness
in the eyes of those whom the world counts as wise — is wiser than men. The
blessed Paul did not consider these persons worthy of notice, since by the

23 Eph 3:14-15; cf. the Fourth Antiochene Symbol.

450

S EM I-ARIAN S

unreasonableness of power God has “made the wisdom” of persons with the
ability to reason “foolish. ” (3) For Paul said, “I came declaring unto you the
mystery of God, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
be made of none effect. ” 24 The blessed Paul did not consider these persons
worthy of notice, since by the unreasonableness of power God has “made the
wisdom” of persons with the ability to reason “foolish .” 25 (3) For Paul said,
“I came declaring unto you the mystery of God, not with wisdom of words,
lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect .” 26 Anyone who, with
wisdom of words, demands < reasons > for the mystery, should disbelieve
the mystery, since his portion is with the wisdom which has been made fool-
ish. For even though such a person disbelieves from wisdom of words, Paul
< chooses to preach “only in demonstration of the Spirit and of power"* > 27
“lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect .” 28

6,4 But if he replies in this way he does not do so with wisdom of words,
but by the unreasonableness of power confounds all wisdom which is
based on reasoning and accepts faith alone for the salvation of those who
receive the Gospel. (5) He does not answer [by explaining ] how the Father
begets the Son without passion, or the mystery of the Only-begotten’s sonship
to the Father might be robbed of its significance. He confounds the wisdom of
the wise, which is “made foolish.” 2,3 — as scripture says, “Where is the wise?
Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world P " 30 — but not with
verbal wisdom, so that the < mystery > will not be rendered meaningless by
suspicions occasioned by arguments. I mean that < the > godly conception of
the Father and the Son — but a Father and a Son with no passions — declares,
without deriving the idea from reason, that the Father had begotten the Son
of himself without emission or passion, and that a Son like his Father in
essence has been begotten of the Father, Perfect of Perfect, an only-begotten
entity. [These are doctrines] which are either < believed > by the faithful, or
suspected < by the unbelieving >.

6,7 For only a fool would hear of Wisdom originating from a wise God, as
the Father of the Wisdom begotten of him wisely knows, and attribute pas-
sion to the Father < because > Wisdom originated from him — if, [that is], the

24 1 Cor 2:1; 1:17.

25 Cf. 1 Cor 1:25.

26 Cf. 1 Cor 2:1; 1:17.

27 1 Cor 2:4.

28 1 Cor 1:17.

29 Cf. Ath. Or. C. Ar. I 28.

30 1 Cor 1:20.

SEMI-ARIANS

451

Wisdom essentially like the wise God is to originate from him. ( 8 ) For, if we
are not to conceive of the wise God as compoundedly wise by participation
in wisdom, he is himself wise, himself an essence, without compounding, and
the wisdom by which he is known is not the Son. The Wisdom which is the
Son is an essence begotten of the essence of the Wise, which is Wisdom. The
Son will subsist as an essence like the essence of the wise Father, from whom
the Son originated as Wisdom.

7.1 And so the blessed Paul, with his excellent training in Hebrew lore,
was accustomed, by the inspiration of the same Spirit who spoke in the Old
and the New Testaments, to derive the same notions as the ones in the two
Psalms, “Thy judgments are a great deep ,” 31 and “Thy paths are in deep
waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known .” 32 But he altered the language
about God’s judgments < by replacing > “great deep” with “0 the depth of
the riches ;" 33 “Thy paths are in deep waters and thy footsteps shall not be
known" with “unsearchable;" and “Thy judgments are a great deep” with
“Thy judgments are past finding out. ”

7.2 And because Wisdom itself had taught him its notion of the Father
and itself, and of its relation to created things, Paul in his own writings pres-
ents us with the idea of the Father and the Son, and the things which have
been created by the Father through the Son, in the following manner. ( 3 ) For
Wisdom had said, “I, Wisdom, give counsel a home " 34 and so forth, and gone
on to explain “by whom?”— for it said, “By me are kings, ’ S5 and “If I shall tell
you the things that are by me, I shall remember to recount the things of old. ” 36
It said, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for his works. Before
the age he established me, and before all things he begets me ;" 37 ( 4 ) but for
“beginning” Paul understood “first ,’' 33 and for “begets me," bom .” 39 And for
the entire sentence, “He created me the beginning of his ways and begets
me, ” the apostle understood “firstborn of every creature. ’’For “he established”
Paul understood “In him are all things created"; for “By me are the things of
old," “Whether thrones or principalities or powers or authorities, all things
were created by him and for him. ”

31 Ps 35:7.

32 Ps 76:20.

33 The New Testament quotations in 7,1 are taken from Rom. 11:33.

34 Prov 8:12.

35 Prov 8:15.

36 Prov 8:21a.

37 Prov 8:22; 23a; 25b.

38 The New Testament citations in 7,4-8 are from Col. 1:15-16.

39 upcoTOTOxo?: firstborn.

452

SEMI-ARIANS

7,5 Thus all < the > apostle’s phrases are word for word equivalents of the
things that were said by Wisdom. That is, “beginning” is equivalent to “first,"
“begets” to “-born," and “He created me the beginning of his ways, for his
works,” to firstborn of every creature." “In him were created” is a substitute
for “He established me,” and “All things are by him” for “By me are the things
of old.” (6) It is thus evident < that > neither did the “Image” originate from
passion, but that it must be understood in the sense of “I, Wisdom”; and that,
as Wisdom is the Son of the Wise, an essence which is the Son of an essence,
so the image is like the essence. The “image” too was understood as “of God
the invisible.” (7) And we have the equivalents for all the words: “God” for
“wise,” “image” for “wisdom,” first” for “beginning,” and “-born” for “first.”

But we can also give the equivalents of whole phrases. “Firstborn of every
creature” is the equivalent of “He created me the beginning of his way, for
his works, and begets me." “In him were created” is the equivalent of “He
established me.” “All things are by him and for him” is the equivalent of “by
me." (8) It is thus plain that not only Paul exposes the entire wrongness 40 of
those who hear that the Son “is the image of the invisible God," and try to
quibble shamelessly about the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father. John
before him, truly the son of thunder, similarly sounded the godly conception
of the Son forth to us with his own loud peal — -from the clouds, as it were, of
the riddles of Wisdom.

8,1 For see how he too transmitted the truths he had learned from Wis-
dom in the Gospel he proclaimed to us. (2) Because Wisdom had said, “He
created me the beginning of his ways, ’ 41 John used the phrase, “in the begin-
ning” in his “In the beginning was the Word.” And for “He created me” John
substituted “And the Word was God ,’ 42 so that we would not take this to
mean the spoken word, but the divine Word < begotten > of the Father with-
out passion, as a stable entity. And for “I was by him ,” 4 ' 3 John substituted
“And < the Word > was God.” (3) For “Through me are the things from of
old ” 44 John substituted “All things were made by him, and without him was
not anything made .” 43 For “She hath founded ” 46 John substituted “That
which was made, in him was life ,” 41 which means the same as “In him were

40 Holl and MSS notpom^owras Eltester, lacuna, or 7iapajT£a , £tv.

41 Prov 8:22.

42 John 1:1.

43 Prov 8:30.

44 Cf. Prov 8:23.

45 John 1:2.

46 Cf. Prov 8:25.

47 John 1:3-4.

SEMI-ARLANS

453

all things created.” 48 ( 4 ) He said, “The Word was made flesh," 49 to corre-
spond with "Wisdom hath budded her house.’* 0 He substituted “The Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever
he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise’* 1 for “I was by him in accord
with him.’* 2 John thus has < the confirmatory testimony *> of two or three
witnesses to prove the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father. ( 5 ) For one
witness says that the Wisdom of the wise God is his Son; one, that the Word
of God is the only-begotten God; one, that the Son is the image of God. Thus
it is proclaimed by all that the Word, Wisdom and Image of God is in all
respects like him, as we have said, and that he is the essential Son of his God
and Father. ( 6 ) Still more, when God’s Word says, “As the Father hath life in
himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,’* 3 he is educat-
ing us, like Thomas, by contact with the actuality of the likeness of essence.
( 7 ) For if “as the Father hath” does not mean what it would in something
else — ( the Father is not one thing and the life in him something else, so
that the one thing means the possessor and the other the thing possessed.
The Father himself is uncompoundedly life, and has granted the Son < to
have life > as he does — plainly, to have it uncompoundedly, like the Father.)
[ Thus] it is plain that in having life in this way, since he has it neither without
generation nor compoundedly, the Son too, like the Father, has all things
essentially and without compounding.

8,8 And yet it is plain that “like” can never be the same as the thing it is
like. For proof < of this we have * > the fact that when the Son of God “was
made in the likeness of men’* 4 he became man indeed, but not the same as
man in every respect. And when he was made “in the likeness of the flesh of
sin” 55 he was made with the passions which are the cause of sin in the flesh —
I mean hunger, thirst and the rest — but was not made the same as the flesh
of sin. Thus the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father is also proclaimed by
the texts from the apostle.

9,1 For as he was made in the likeness of man he was both man, and yet
not entirely so — was man in his assumption of human flesh, for “The Word

48 Col 1:16.

49 John 1:14.
5 ° Prov 9:1.

51 John 5:19.

52 Prov 8:30.

53 John 5:26.

54 Phil 2:7.

55 Rom 8:3.

454

S EM I-ARIAN S

was made flesh ," 56 but not man in that he was not begotten of human seed
and sexual commerce — (2) just so, in that he was the Son of God, he was the
Son of God before all ages, just as, in that he was a son of man, he was man.
But he is not the same thing as the God and Father who begot him, just as
he is not the same thing as man, since [he was begotten] without emission of
seed and passion, < just as > [he was made man] without human seed and
sexual enjoyment.

g,3 And < as he was made > in the likeness of the flesh of sin through
being subject to fleshly hunger, thirst and sleep, the passions by which bod-
ies are moved to sin, and yet, though subject to these passions of the flesh,
he was not moved to sin by them — (4) even so the Son, who was < Son > of
God, “in the form of God," and is “equal” to God , 51 possessed the attributes of
the Godhead in being by nature incorporeal, and like the Father in divinity,
incorporeality and activities. As he was “like” the flesh in being flesh and sub-
ject to the passions of the flesh, (5) and yet was not the same, < so he is “like"
God > in the sense that, as God, he is not “the form” of “the God” but the form
of “God ,’ 56 and “equal,” not to “the God” but to “God” Nor does he < have the
Godhead > with full sovereignty like the Father. For as he was not < moved >
to sin < tike > a man, and yet behaved tike a man, < so, as God, he behaves
“like” the Father * >, “For whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son also doeth . 59

g,6 Now he was not moved to sin here on earth, but was moved in ways
similar to persons in the flesh. (It would be strange if, after passing from
his natural state to a state unnatural to him, that is, after becoming a son
of man when he had been God, he should become like those to whom this
state was natural — that is, who were human by nature — in a trait that was
unnatural to him, but [at the same time] not be like his Father by nature in
the trait that was natural to him, since he was God begotten of God. And it
is plain that those who deny the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father do
not call him a son either, but only a creature — and do not call the Father a
father, but a creator. For the notion of “like" does not entail the Son’s identity
with the Father, but his likeness of essence to him, and his ineffable sonship
to him without passion.) (7) For, I say again, as he was not brought to iden-
tity with men < by being made > in the likeness of men and of sinful flesh, but,
for the reasons given, became like the essence of the flesh, so, by being made

56 John 1:14.

57 Phil 2:6.

58 For the distinction between 9 so<; and 6 8 eog see Lampe, Lexicon of Patristic Greek,
6438b.

59 John 5:19.

SEMI-ARLANS

455

Like in essence to the Father who begot him, the Son wilt not bring his essence
to identity with the Father, but to likeness to [him],

10.1 And if, through heeding the wisdom of the world which God has made
foolish, anyone fails to heed God’s wise declaration and confess with faith the
Son’s likeness of essence to the Father, for example by giving false names to
the Father and the Son and not truly terming them “Father” and “Son” but
“creator” and “creature, “ equating the concepts of the Father and the Son
with the [fatherhood and sonship] of other creatures — and if, from a desire
to rationalize, he says that the Son < is superior > [only] in utility as the first
of < the > creatures < which have been made > through him, or in the excel-
lence of his greatness, thus confessing none of the church’s faith in the Father
and the Son, as though to preach by deliberate choice a Gospel different from
the Gospel the apostles preached to us, let him be anathema.

10.2 And — to repeat the blessed Paul’s words, “As we said before, so say I
now again” 60 — we too must say < in our turn >, If, on hearing that the Father
is the only wise God and that his only-begotten Son is his Wisdom, anyone
says that the Wisdom is the same as the only wise God and thus denies his
sonship, let him be anathema.

10.3 And f on hearing that the Father is the wise God and the Son is his
Wisdom, anyone says that the Wisdom is unlike the wise God in essence, and
thus denies that the wise God is truly the Father of the Wisdom, let him be
anathema.

10.4 And if anyone regards the Father as “the God” but< denies > that
the Word and “God” in the beginning existed as “God” with “the God” and
that, as Word and “God, ” he was with “the” very “God” himself, with whom
he existed as Word and God — and so denies his true sonship — let him be
anathema.

10.5 And if anyone, on hearing that the only-begotten divine Word is the
Son of “the God” with whom the Word and “God” is, says that the Father’s
divine Word, the “God” who belongs to “the God” and Father, is essentially
unlike Him with whom the Only-begotten was at the beginning as [his] divine
Word — and so denies his true sonship — let him be anathema.

10.6 And if, in denial of his true sonship, anyone, on hearing that the Son
is “the image of the invisible God ,” 61 says that the image is the same as the
invisible God, let him be anathema.

60 Cf. Gal 1:18.

61 Col 1:15.

456

SEMI-ARIANS

10.7 And if> m true denial of the sonship, anyone, on hearing that the only-
begotten Son is “the image of the invisible God,” says that, since he is the
invisible God’s “image,” the Son is unlike the invisible God in essence even
though the Son is held to be the invisible God’s “essential” image, let him be
anathema.

10.8 And if anyone, on hearing the words of the Son, “For as the Father
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself ” 62 says
that the Recipient of the life from the Father — he who confessed, “And I live
by the Father” 63 — is the same as the Giver of the life, let him be anathema.

10.9 And f anyone, on hearing “For as the Father hath life in himself,
even so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” says that the Son is
essentially unlike the Father even though he affirms that the truth is as the
Son has stated it , 64 let him be anathema. For plainly, as the life which is held
to be in the Father means his essence, and as the life of the Only-begotten,
who is begotten of the Father, is held to be his essence, thus the word, “so, ”
denotes the likeness of essence to essence.

11.1 And if anyone, on hearing the Son’s, “He created me,” and, “He begets
me ,” 65 does not take “begets me” literally and as a reference to essence, but
says that “He begets me” means the same as “He created me,” thus denying
that the Son is < designated > by the two terms as the perfect < Son > [begot-
ten] without passion, < but >, < on the basis of these two terms >, confessing
that he is a mere creature and not a Son — for Wisdom has conveyed the
godly meaning by the two terms — let him be anathema.

11.2 And since the Son reveals to us his likeness in essence to the Father
through his words, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself," but his likeness in activity through his
teaching, “For what things soever the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth
likewise 66 — [therefore], if anyone grants him only the likeness of activity
but denies the Son his likeness of essence, the cornerstone of our faith, and
denies himself eternal life in the knowledge of the Father and the Son, let him
be anathema.

11.3 And if anyone who professes to believe in a Father and a Son says that
the Father is not the Father of an essence like his, but the Father of an activ-

62 John 5:26.

63 John 6:57.

64 Amidon: “insisting that that is in fact what he has said”.

65 Prov 8:22; 25.

66 John 5:19.

SEMI-ARLANS

457

ity, let him be anathema for daring to utter “profane babblings ” 61 against the
essence of the Son of God, and denying the truth of his sonship.

11.4 And if anyone who holds that [Christ] is the Son of an essence Like his
of whom he is held to be the Son, should say that the Son is the same as the
Father, or is part of the Father, or that the incorporeal Son originated from
the incorporeal Father by emission or passion as corporeal sons do, let him
be anathema.

11.5 And if anyone who, because the Father is one person and the Son is
another, says that the Son differs from the Father since the Father is never
conceived of as the Son and the Son is never conceived of as the Father —
as the scripture says, “There is another that beareth witness of me ,” 68 for
“The Father that hath sent me beareth witness” 69 — [if anyone who says this]
because of this godly distinction of the persons of the Father and the Son
which is made in the church, fears that the Son may be supposed to be the
same as the Father, and therefore says that the Son is unlike the Father in
essence, let him be anathema.

n,6 And if anyone holds that the Father is the Father of the only-begotten
Son in time, and does not believe that the only-begotten Son has originated
impassibiy from the Father beyond all times and differently from any human
thought — thus abandoning the preaching of the apostles, which rejected
time with reference to the Father and the Son, but faithfully taught us, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God," 70 — let him be anathema.

11,7 And if anyone says that the Father is prior in time to his only-begotten
Son, and that the Son is later in time than the Father, let him be anathema.

n,8 And if anyone ascribes the only-begotten Son’s timeless origin from
the Father to the unbegotten essence of God, and thus speaks of a Son-Father,
let him be anathema.

11,9 And if anyone says that the Father is < the Father > of the only-begot-
ten Son by authority only, and not the Father of the only-begotten Son by
authority and essence alike — thus accepting only the authority, equating the
Son with any creature, and denying that he is actually the true Son of the
Father — let him be anathema.

67 Cf. i Tim 6:20.

68 John 5:32.

69 John 5:37.

70 John 1:1.

458

SEMI-ARIANS

11.10 A ml if anyone, though saying that the Father is the Father of the Son
by authority and essence, also says that the Son is co-essential, or of identical
essence with the Father, let him be anathema.

11.11 The signers are Basil, Eustathius, Hyperechius, Letoeus, Heorticus,
Gymnasius, Memnonius, Eutyches, Severinus, Eutychius, Alcimides and
Alexander. I too believe as the above articles have stated, and confess them
with my signature.

The end of the memorial of Basil, George and his companions

< The Letter of George >

12,1 It is plain that the term, “being " 71 does not appear in the Old and
the New Testaments, but the sense of it is to be found, everywhere. In the
first place, He who owes his origin to none but is the cause of all things < is
implied > by God’s words when he sent Moses, “Thus shall thou say unto the
children of Israel, ‘He Who Is ’ ,r/2 — < meaning > him who is regarded primar-
ily as the Father “of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, " 73
who has no cause and is the cause of the things that exist. (2) Now the Son
also “is"; but Paul the Samosatian and Marcellus took advantage of the text
in the Gospel according to John, “In the beginning was the Word " 74 No lon-
ger willing to call the Son of God truly a Son, they took advantage of the term,
“Word, ” I mean verbal expression and utterance, and refused to say “Son of
God.” (3) And so the fathers who tried Paul the Samosatian for this heresy
were forced to say that the Son too is a being to show that the Son has reality,
subsists, and is, but is not a word, and to distinguish, by means of the term,
“being,” between a thing which has no existence of its own, and a thing which
does. (4) For a word has no existence of its own and cannot be a son of God,
since if it could, there would be many sons of God

For it is agreed that the Father said many things to the Son — When, for
instance, he said, “Let there be a firmament ," 75 “Let there be luminaries ," 76
“Let the earth bring forth ,’' 7 ' 7 and, “Let us make man ." 78 (5) The Father
therefore speaks to the Son, and yet God’s words, which he says to the Son,
are not sons. The Son to whom the Father speaks, however, may with piety

71 ouata. In the Letter of George it is more convenient to use this rendering than
“essence.”

72 Exod 3:14. Cf. Eus. Eccl. Theol. 2.20.15; Ath. Dec. Nic. Syn. 22.3; Or. IV 26.

73 Eph 3:15.

74 John 1:1.

75 Gen 1:6.

76 Gen 1:4.

77 Gen 1:24.

78 Gen 1:26.

SEMI-ARIANS

459

be called, among other things, “bread,” “life," and “resurrection"; and he is
further termed, “Word, ” since he is the interpreter of the counsels of God.

12,6 And therefore lest, to deceive the simple, the heretics should say that
the Son is the same as the words which are spoken by God, the fathers, as I
say, called the Son a “being” to show the difference between the Son of God
and the words of God. They expressed the distinction in this way because
God “is, ” and the words which he speaks < “are” >, and yet they are not God’s
“beings" but his verbal operations. But although the Son is a Word, he is not
God’s verbal operation; he is a “being” since he is a Son. (7) For if the Father
“is” the Son also < “is” >; but the Son “is" in such a way that, (8) since he has
his being from God by true sonship, he will not be regarded as a Word like
the words God speaks. They have their being in the Speaker; but he has his in
virtue of his begetting by the Father, his hearing of the Father, and his service
to the Father. The fathers, then, called this entity a “being. ”

13.1 We regard the Son as like the Father in all respects, in opposition to
the party that is now growing up as an excrescence on the church. (2) This
current faction declares that the Son is like the Father in will and activity,
but that the Son is unlike the Father in < being >. (3) Thus it is the contention
of these new sectarians that the will of the Son and the activity of the Son
are like the will of the Father and the activity of the Father, but that the Son
himself is unlike the Father. And they agree that the Son’s will and activity
are like the Father’s will and activity, but the reason they will not allow that
the Son is like the Father is that they maintain that the Son is not begotten of
God. He is merely a creature, and differs from the other creatures in that he
surpasses them in greatness and came into being before them all, and that
God availed himself of his assistance in the creation of the rest. (4) Because,
say the sectarians, God made the rest through a Son, but made him by no
one’s instrumentality but personally, and made him superior in greatness
and might to all things, God called him an “only-begotten Son.”

14.1 We of the catholic church, however, have taken our confession of faith
from the sacred scriptures, and hold as follows. The Father is the Father
of a Son like himself, and the Son is like the Father of whom he is held to
be the Son. (2) Defining this further, and thus narrowing the sense of it as
against the Sabellians and the rest, we hold that the Son cannot be a Father,
or the Father a Son. (3) (The accurate knowledge of the Persons consists of
the following: The Father, who is everlastingly a Father, is incorporeal and
immortal, while the Son, who is everlastingly a Son and never a Father, but
is called everlasting because of his being’s independence of time and incom-
prehensibility, has taken flesh by the will of the Father, and has undergone
death for us.)

460

S EM I-ARIAN S

14,4 Despite the clarity of these distinctions, the strange people who sup-
port this sect exert themselves in an effort to achieve two aims. One is never
again to say “Father and Son,” but “Ingenerate and Generate"; for in this
way they hope to foist the sophistry of their sect on the church. (5) For those
who are wise in the things of God understand that “Ingenerate” < plainly >
means less than the term, "Father.” Since “ingenerate” means [only] that a
thing has not been generated, it does not yet say whether it is also a father —
for the term, “father,” means more than the term, “ingenerate.” (6) As I say,
“ingenerate” does not carry the connotation of fatherhood, but “father” con-
notes, both that the father is not a son — provided that he is understood as
a “father” in the proper sense of the word — and that he is the cause of a son
like himself.

14,7 This is one aim. Besides, they were the first to portray the Son as
unlike the Father in essence, since they supposed, from something they had
unearthed in a letter by the venerable bishop Hosius in which the essential
unlikeness is mentioned , 79 that the church had affirmed it. (8) However,
since the easterners who came to Sirmium last year 80 exposed this sect’s
sharp practice, they tried their best, in order to escape punishment for their
assaults on the church’s faith, to remove the term, “being” which was used
by the fathers, from the church’s teaching for these reasons, as another way
of lending apparent strength to their sect.

15,1 For they supposed that, if the word, “being,” were rejected, they could
say that the Son is like the Father only in will and activity, and gain the
right to say, finally, that since “being” was not mentioned, the Son is unlike
the Father in being and existence. (2) But God, the vindicator of the truth
who “taketh the wise in their own craftiness, ” 81 openly declared, through the
mouth of the pious emperor, that his Only-begotten’s relation to himself is
the Son’s likeness to him in all respects. (3) For this was the emperor’s own
view, in his piety, of God’s only-begotten Son who fought for him. And since
this was his belief he declared with pious Ups that the Son is like the Father in
all respects, as the catholics believe; and that it was not by his doing that this
proceeding against the church’s faith had been launched, the aim of which

79 Hosius of Cordova signed the creed of the Second Council of Sirmium, ad 357. This
creed repudiates hoth the homoousion and the homoeousion, because they are not in
scripture and the manner of the Son’s generation cannot be known. It does not mention
in so many words the doctrine of the Son’s unlikeness to the Father.

80 I.e., 358 ad.

81 1 Cor 3:19.

SEMI-ARIANS

461

was to eliminate the term, “being” so that, with “being" no longer on men’s
Ups, the heresy might make its lair in their hearts.

15.4 But let us anticipate them, since they describe [ the Son] as like [the
Father] in will but unlike him in essence. If, indeed, they candidly and plainly
admit his likeness in all things to the Father, the worthlessness of their anx-
ious effort to remove the word, “being," will be exposed. ( 5 ) For they gained
nothing since they were compelled to confess that the Son is like the Father
in all respects. For if he is like in all respects, as they have confessed him to
be — and it is in this way that the Son is like the Father — he is like, not just in
will and operation — the distinction they draw — but in existence, subsistence
and being as a son should be.

And once for all, < the phrase >, “in all respects, ” is all-inclusive and leaves
no room for distinction. (6) This — if it be admitted that the Father himself
is not “like” himself, and the Son himself is not “like” himself, but is instead a
Son who is like his Father; and that, since he is in all respects like the Father,
he is not a Father but a Son — [this] provides us with a worthy conception of
the Father through our contemplation of him. ( 7 ) For the Son was begotten
of this Father, Perfect begotten of Perfect, begotten in the Father’s likeness 82
before anyone can conceive and, before all reckonings, times and ages — as
only the Father knows, who begot the Son of himself without passion; and the
Son, who has his being from him; and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

16,1 And the word, “hypostases,” need trouble no one. The easterners say
“hypostases” as an acknowledgment of the subsistent, real individualities of
the persons. ( 2 ) For if the Father is spirit, the Son is spirit, and the Holy Ghost
is spirit, < but > “the Son” does not mean “Father” — and since there is also
a “Spirit,” and this does not mean “Son,” and he is not the Son — and since
the Holy Spirit cannot be the Father or the Son, but is a Holy Spirit given to
the faithful by the Father through the Son — and since, in all probability, the
Holy Spirit too subsists and is real — the easterners, as I said, call the indi-
vidualities of the subsistent Persons “hypostases.” They do not mean that the
three hypostases are three first principles, or three Gods, for they condemn
anyone who speaks of three Gods. ( 3 ) Nor do they call the Father and the Son
two Gods; they confess that the Godhead is one, and that it encompasses all
things through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

16.4 < But > though they confess one Godhead, dominion and first prin-
ciple, they still acknowledge the Persons in an orthodox manner through the
individualities of the hypostases. They perceive the Father as subsistent in

82 Holl xoi8’ ofiOioTvjTa; MSS opoioTvj-roi;, "of the Father’s likeness,” is not possible.

462

S EM I-ARIAN S

his paternal authority and confess the Son, not as a part of the Father, but
as a perfect Son plainly begotten without blemish of a perfect Father. And
they acknowledge that the Floly Spirit, whom the sacred scripture calls the
Paraclete, owes his being to the Father through the Son. ( 5 ) < For > as the
Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, teaches us the truth, which is the Son — No man
can say, Jesus is Lord, but by the Floly Spirit” 83 — so the Son, who is truth,
teaches the godly knowledge of the true God, his Father, as he says, “He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father .” 84 ( 6 ) In the Holy Spirit, then, we have
a godly apprehension of the Son; but in the only-begotten Son we piously
and worthily glorijy the Father. And this is the seal of the faith, the seal with
which our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, who said, “Go make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, ” 85 commanded us to be baptized.

17,1 The Son’s likeness in all respects to the Father has been more exten-
sively discussed elsewhere. Even now, however, I do not mind noting briefly
in passing that the apostle, who called the Son “the image of the invisible
God ” 86 and in this way taught us that the Son is like the Father, has told us
in other passages how we are to conceive of the Son. ( 2 ) In the Epistle to the
Philippians he says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him
the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ;” 81 and in the
Epistle to the Romans, ( 3 ) “For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin the flesh. ” 88

Thus, through the two passages from the two Epistles, we are also taught,
through physical examples, the orthodox notion of likeness as it applies to
the incorporeal Father and Son. ( 4 ) The words, “took upon him the form of
a servant and was made in likeness of men,” show that the Son took flesh
from the Virgin. Therefore the flesh which the Son of God took is the same
as human flesh. But it is “in the likeness” of men, since it was not generated
from seed, as men are, or by commerce with a man. ( 5 ) Similarly the Son,
who is spirit and begotten of the Father as spirit, is the same as the Father in
that he is spirit begotten of spirit, just as he is < the same as men > in that he

83 1 Cor 12:3.

84 John 14:9.

85 Matt 28:19.

86 Col 1:15.

87 Phil 2:6-7.

88 Rom 8:3.

SEMI-ARIANS

463

is flesh born of Mary’s flesh. But in that he is begotten of the Father without
emanation, passion and division, he is “like” the Father, and yet not < the
Father > himself - — < just as > the fleshly Son is in the “likeness” of men, and
yet not himself man in all respects.

18.1 Through the Epistle to the Philippians, then, Paul has taught us how
the hypostasis of the Son is like the hypostasis of the Father. For the Son is
spirit, [begotten] of the Father, and, as far as the meaning of "spirit” goes, the
same as he— just as he is the same [as man] as far as the meaning of “flesh”
goes. And yet he is not the same but like, since “spirit, ” which the Son is, is not
the Father, and the flesh the Word assumed has not originated from human
seed and through pleasure, but as the Gospel has taught us.

18.2 As I have said, the Son has taught us through Philippians how the
Son is entirely like the Father in his being and subsistence. (3) But how he is
like him in his will, activity and operations he has taught us through Romans,
with the words, “In the likeness of the flesh of sin he condemned sin in the
flesh ." 89 The flesh which the Son of God assumed was the same as the flesh
of sin, and was likewise moved to hunger, thirst and sleep like all flesh, but
was not moved to sin by them. (4) This is why scripture says, “in the ‘likeness’
of the flesh of sin, ” an expression similar to, ‘What things soever the Father
doeth, the same doeth the Son in like manner. ” 90 For the Father, who is spirit,
acts on his own authority; the Son, though spirit, does not act on his own
authority like the Father, but acts “in like manner."

18,5 Therefore, insofar as all flesh is the same, he is the same — just as,
insofar as all spirit is the same, he is the same. But insofar as [his flesh was
conceived] without seed, he is not the same [as flesh] but like it, just as,
insofar as he was begotten, [though] without emission and passion, he is
not the same [as the Father], but like him. And he is the same as flesh insofar
as all flesh is the same, just as he is the same as spirit insofar as all spirit is
the same. But insofar as he is in the likeness of sinful flesh, he is like in the
impulses of the flesh and yet not the same, just as the Son [acts, but] in a
subordinate role in the likeness of the [Father’s] action, and not in the same
way that the Father acts, with full sovereignty. (6) From these considerations
it is evident that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as a son is like his
father if he is legitimately begotten of him.

For it would be absurd for Him who was God’s Son before all ages, and
who was by nature God of God the Father, to become like those who were

89 Rom 8:3.

90 John 5:19.

464

SEMI-ARIANS

men by nature, in a way unnatural to him, when he was made man of Mary,
contrary to nature — ( since he was God, it was not natural for him to become
man ) — and yet for him not to be like the Father who begot him in a way
that was natural to him. (7) If he, unnaturally, is like those who are men by
nature, all the more is he by nature like the Father who begot him legitimately
in accordance with his nature. It is thus in keeping with the scriptures that
the doctrine of the Son’s likeness to the Father in all respects be added to the
scriptures. < But > he is like him, < and > has been understood < by us > [to be
like him] in the senses in which the apostle has taught us the notion of “like-
ness” through the above passages. (8) For he is also like [the Father] in that
he is life of life, light of light, very God of very God, and wisdom of the wise
God. And in a word, according to the scriptures he is not like [the Father]
merely in activity and will. In his very being, subsistence and actuality, he is
in all respects like the Father who begot him — as a son is like a father.

19.1 If the new sectarians go on to dispute with us and speak of“ingener-
ate" and “generate,” we shall tell them, ‘You have disingenuously refused to
accept the word, ‘being, ’ although it was used by the fathers, because it is
unscriptural. Neither will we accept the word, ‘ingener ate,’ since it is unscrip-
tural. The apostle says, ‘incorruptible,’ ‘invisible,’ ‘immortal,’ but scripture
has never called God ‘ingenerate. ’ ”

19.2 Then, as I have already said, “ingenerate” does notyet mean “Father. ”
And in itself, “generate” does notyet mean “Son,” but applies the meaning
equally to all things that have origins. ( For if one says “generate, ” he has
indicated that the thing had an origin, but has nowhere given indication
of One who must forever be regarded as a Son. We, therefore, who forever
regard him as the Son of God, shall not accept this term.)

19.3 <But> besides, the phrase, “Father and Son,” denotes a relation to
something. Thus even if we name only a “father," we have the notion of “son"
included in the term, “father for “father” means the father of a son. < And >
even though we name only a “son,” we have the notion of the “father,” for
“son” means the son of a father. (4) Each is linked with the other, and the
connection cannot be broken. Indeed, either of them mentioned alone implies
the notion of the other — and not only the name, but with the name, the natu-
ral relationship. (5) In understanding God to be a Father, we understand
him to be the Father of God. And in understanding a Son of God to be God,
we also understand the said Son of God to be of like nature with Him whose
Son he is understood to be. But “ingenerate” does not mean “the ingenerate
father of a generate son”, nor does “generate” mean “generate son of an
ingenerate father."

SEMI-ARLANS

465

20.1 The terms “ingenerate" and “generate," then, do not Imply a rela-
tionship between the ingenerate and the generate, or, at the same time, give
indication of their nature. Instead they put the individuality of the Son on a
level with the rest of created things. Therefore, because of the impious trick-
ery, we shall not accept the terms, but shall persist in our holy use of “Father
and Son. ”

20.2 In the first place, we who were called from the gentiles were not bap-
tized in the name of an Ingenerate and a Generate, but of a Father and a
Son. And then, the Son is nowhere found to have called his Father “Ingener-
ate," but to have always called God, “Father,” and himself, “Son of God.” ( 3 )
To mention a few examples in passing we hear him say, “If ye loved me, ye
would rejoice because I go unto my Father ”; 91 “Are ye angry with me, whom
the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, because I said, I am the
Son of God ?” 92 “I proceeded forth from the Father and am come. I came forth
from the Father and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go
unto the Father. ” 9? And Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of
God . 94 And the Father says from on high, “This is my beloved Son ." 95

20,4 And therefore, since the Father thus refers to the Son and the Son
to the Father, and we — to say it once more — were baptized in these names,
we shall always use them, and reject the “profane innovations ” 96 against
the apostolic faith. ( 5 ) For the words of the Father, “By the splendors of the
saints, from the belly, before the morning star begot I thee ,” 97 are spoken
perforce, and will withdraw the Son from the category of creatures; for by
the term which corresponds to the term, “belly,” (i.e., “beget”) the Father
teaches us of the Son he has legitimately begotten as his own. ( 6 ) And when
the Son likewise said “The Lord created me, ” 98 to < keep us from > suppos-
ing that his nature is in the same category as the other, created things,” he
perforce added, “Before all hills he begets me ," 99 providing us with the notion
of his sonship to God the Father that is a godly one and implies no passion.
( 7 ) However, the Father has expounded “generate” to us once, and the Son

91 John 14:28.

92 John 10:36.

93 John 16:28 combined with 8:42.

94 Matt 16:16.

95 Matt 17:5.

96 Cf. Tim 6:20.

97 Ps 109:3.

98 Prov 8:22.

99 Cf. Prov 8:25.

466

SEMI-ARIANS

once, because of the Son’s godly filiation. But the entire New Testament is full
of the words, “Father,” and, “Son."

21.1 But so that the coiners of this heresy may be known by their own
words, I note in passing a few examples of the many things they have written
on the subject — [no more than a few,] because of their length. From these,
I presume, the catholics must surety understand the full purport of their
heresy, and make the decision that those who have written these things must
abjure them, and to expet both them and their doctrines from the apostolic
faith, as well as condemning those who believe and teach the same as they.
For they write as follows, in these very words:

21.2 “Most of all I am eager to convey to you, in brief compass, some of the
finest, God-inspired words. Any who suppose that the Son has a Likeness of
essence to the Father have departed from the truth, for with the title, ‘gener-
ate,’ they impeach the Likeness of essence .” 100

21.3 And again, they say, “The Son both is and is admitted to be inferior

< to the Ingenerate because of his > generation. He therefore cannot have
Likeness of essence to the Ingenerate, but does have the Likeness by upholding
the will of God, unaltered, in his own person. He has a Likeness, then — not
a likeness of essence but a Likeness in respect of will, < for God > brought

< him > into being as he willed. ”

And again, “Why do youyourself not agree with me that the Son is not like
the Father in essence?”

Further, ( 4 ) “When it is admitted that the Son is everlasting although
he does not have life of his own nature but by the authority of the Ingener-
ate; but it is also admitted that ingenerate nature endlessly transcends all
authority; why is it < not > plain that the impious are exchanging the godly
doctrine of the heteroousion for ‘Likeness of essence?’ ”

21.5 And again, “Therefore the word, ‘Father,’ is not indicative of essence,
but of the authority which brought the Son into being before ail ages as the
divine Word, everlastingly < in possession > of the essence and authority
which have been given him, and which he continues to possess."

21.6 And again, “< If > they maintain that ‘Father’ denotes essence but not
authority, they should also call the person of the Only-begotten, Father.”’

22,1 We shall now say to the present day sectarians, ‘You have written,
‘Like in will, unlike in essence. ’ We have therefore written in reply, ‘Like, not
merely by imitation, but in essence as welL’ ( 2 ) You, then, were the first to

100 I.e., If the Father is “ingenerate” the Son must be “generate.” Therefore they cannot
be of like essence.

SEMI-ARLANS

467

mention essence, when you said ‘unlikeness in essence’; and you are eager
for the elimination of the word, ‘essence,’ so that you can say that the Son is
like the Father only in will (3) Therefore, if you really agree that the Son is
in all respects like the Father, condemn those who speak of a distinction in
likeness, and write as follows: 'If anyone denies that the Son is like the Father
just as [any] son is like his father, but says that he is like him only in will and
unlike him in essence, let him be anathema.’” (4) And fthey choose < not >
to mention the word, “essence,” after that, and repudiate even their own sig-
natures by making <no> mention at all of “essence, ” they should still confess
the faith of the fathers that the Son is like < the > Father not only in will, but
in essence, subsistence and actuality — in a word, in everything as a son is
like his father, as the sacred scriptures say."

22.5 The signatories of the statement of faith 101 in the Son’s likeness to the
Father in all respects were the following:

Mark, bishop of Arethusia. I so believe and hold, and , and all here
present < am in agreement > with the foregoing.

But Valens subscribed as follows. All here present, and the godly emperor
before whom I have testified both orally and in writing know how I have
affixed the above signature on the night before Pentecost.

22.6 But after this Valens signed the document in his own way. To his
signature he added a statement that the Son is like the Father, but without
adding, “in all respects, ” and making it clear in what sense he agreed with
the above, or how he understood “co-essential. ” The godly emperor pointed
this out and compelled him to add, “in all respects,” which he did.

But Basil suspected that he had added even “in all respects" in a sense of
his own 102 to the copies < which > Valens was anxious to obtain, to take to
the council at Ariminum. 103 So he subscribed as follows:

22.7 Basil, bishop ofAncyra. I < so > believe. And I assent to the foregoing
by confessing that the Son is like the Father in all respects. But in all! Not
merely in will, but, as the sacred scriptures teach, in subsistence, actuality
and essence, as a son is. [I believe that he is] spirit of spirit, life of life, light
of light, God of God, very Son of very < Father >; the Son, who is Wisdom, of a

101 The creed of the fourth Council of Sirmium, May 22, 359 ad, concludes, “The word,
‘essence’ . . . gives scandal, as the scriptures do not contain it. It is our pleasure that it be
removed . . . But we affirm that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as the scriptures
say and teach.” Hahn pp. 204-5; (Ath. Syn. 8.70; Soc. 2.37; Nic. H. E. 9.30).

102 Amidon and MSS: tu iSlco vco; MSS: <p]> tco ISici) vtj).

103 The creed of the Council of Ariminum, 359 ad, was a compromise formula which
said, “. . . like the Father, the Begetter, according to the scriptures, whose origin no one
knows save the Father, who alone begot him . . .” Hahn p. 208 (Jer. C. Luc. t7).

468

SEMI-ARIANS

wise God. and Father. And in a word, [I confess ] that the Son is tike the Father
in all respects, as a son is Like a father. (8) And as has been stated above, if
anyone says that the Son is Like the Father [only] in a particular way, he is
untrue to the catholic church, since he is not saying that the Son is like the
Father in accordance with the sacred scriptures.

The postscript was read and given to Valens in the presence of the bishops
Mark, George, Ursacius, Germanus and Hypatian, and a larger number of
presbyters and deacons.

23.1 I have inserted these letters to show all studious persons who are
in search of the truths of the faith that I do not accuse people without
reason, but do my best to base what I say on reliable evidence.

23.2 In turn, the Semi-Arians fell out with their allies; and they quar-
reled with each other and competed for leadership because of the
grudges of some of them, and from common jealousy of each other and
the desire to rule. And at that time the party of these Semi-Arians — I
mean Basil, George, Silvanus and the rest of them — were in the ascen-
dent. But < the others* > — Eudoxius, George of Alexandria, and Euzoeus
of Antioch — < opposed them* >, and had on their side an arm of flesh,
the emperor Constantius. (3) And in spite of their great influence the
party of Basil and George of Laodicea were humiliated. 104 Still others of
them broke with this faction and confederacy, and the Arian movement
was divided into three groups. (4) For because of his envy and hatred of
Cyril of Jerusalem, this same Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, along with
Melitius, Uranius of Tyre, and Eutychius of Eleutheropolis opposed Basil,
George of Laodicea, Silvanus of Tarsus, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Macedonius of
Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste and the newly consecrated bishop
of Antioch, Anianus. < And > by ranging himself against them, Acacius
caused a great deal of confusion.

23,5 [All of] these people, in fact, were of the same opinion, but were
divided; because they each confessed it differently they differed, and were
separated into the three factions I have indicated. (6) For although they
were the same as the others, Acacius and his allies would neither con-
fess the homoousion, nor say that Christ is a creature < like > any other
creature. While < they > kept quiet about the word, “creature,” because
of the times, they were entirely like < the > Arians. But at that time they
concealed the fact that they believed no differently than these, because

104 Basil, along with Eustathius of Sebaste and Cyril of Jerusalem, was deprived of his
see at the synod held at Constantinople in 360.

SEMI-ARLANS

469

of the admixture with them of people who were really orthodox, but were
hypocrites and practiced hypocrisy for fear of the emperor’s right arm.

And what with their mutual hatred, < they could not > stand firm even
though they wanted to. (7) For from enmity towards Cyril, Eutychius of
Eleutheropolis became one of Acacius’ supporters, since he had learned
the plain creed of orthodoxy from the blessed Maximon, the confessor
bishop of Jerusalem. He was orthodox for a while, but dissembled to keep
his see, as did many other Palestinian bishops. (8) For their sakes Acacius
and his friends, though they were infected with the same madness and
insane heresy, did not agitate these issues for the time being, and < did
not dare > either to confess or to deny < the homoousion >. But at the
Emperor Constantius’ command they met at the town in Isauria called
Rugged Seleucia and issued another creed, if you please 105 — a creed not
in agreement with the one the fathers had drawn up in the city of Nicaea,
which was orthodox and well drawn. Instead, they said with feigned sim-
plicity, (24,1) We believe in one God the Father almighty, and next simply,
And [we believe] in the Son of God, without saying anything of weight about
him. 106 But later, to give a glimpse of their device, they said, We reject the
homoousion as untrue to sacred scripture, but condemn the doctrine of the
Son’s unlikeness to the Father.

24,2 And this was the lure of crafty hunters. In fact, when they were by
themselves they would assert and teach that the Son of God is a creature,
but that he is “like” the Father in the common understanding of the term.
(3) For even sculptors create images and produce likenesses, of gold, sil-
ver and other materials or of paint on wood, and they have the likeness
of their models, but nothing to equal them. And so their strategy was to
confess that the Son is "like” the Father, but without one bit of the Father’s
Godhead.

24,4 Some of their supporters accepted this < with hesitation* >, but still
accepted it because of the misfortune of the time that had befallen them;
and at the same time most knew what they were doing, though some were
indeed in ignorance, as was shown later. For Patrophilus of Scythopolis
was on their side, and after him Philip, who was consecrated there as his
successor, and many others who really held this heresy. (5) Now, however,

105 The Council of Seleucia was held in 359 by the eastern bishops, while the western
bishops were holding the Council of Ariminum. For its creed see below at 25,6.

106 The creed of Seleucia in fact reads, “And we also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, his
Son, who was begotten of him . . .” etc. Epiphanius is either misinformed, or tendentious,
at this point.

470

SEMI-ARIANS

after their deaths, when their heresy has become widespread and they
are free to speak because of the arm of flesh, they are stating their thesis
plainly with no further hindrance, and are no longer restrained by any
shame, or pretending because of an emperor’s order. (6) <But> lest it be
thought that I am attacking them for no good reason, I shall here give
the creed which was issued there by Acacius’ faction themselves, over the
signature of the participants in the council. It is as follows:

(The Synodical Letter ofSeleucia ) 107

25,1 The bishops who have assembled at Seleucia in Isauria from various
provinces at the command of his Reverence, our most God-fearing emperor
Constantins. We, who have assembled at Seleucia in Isauria by the will of the
emperor, have passed the following resolution:

25.2 Yesterday, the fifth before the Kalends of October, we made every
effort, with all decorum, to preserve the peace of the church and, as our
emperor Constantins, the most beloved of God, commanded us, produce
a sound statement <of> the faith in the words of the prophets <and Gos-
pels >, and add nothing contrary to the sacred scriptures to the creed of the
church.

25.3 But certain persons abused some of us at the council, silenced oth-
ers and did not permit them to speak, locked some out against their will,
were accompanied by deposed clerics from various provinces, and brought
with them persons who had been uncanonically ordained. The session thus
became full of clamor on every side, as the most illustrious count Leonas, and
Lauridus, the most illustrious governor of the province, saw with their own
eyes. Therefore we assert that we do not abandon the genuine creed < which
was put forth > at the Dedication at Antioch, but bring <it> forward. This is
the main reason the fathers themselves came together at that time, the one
which underlies the question.

25.4 < But > since the doctrines of the homoousion and homoeousion have
troubled many in the past and do today, and it is further said that the novel
doctrine of the Son’s unlikeness to the Father is even now taught by some, we
reject the homoousion as untrue to the scriptures, but condemn the doctrine
of the unlikeness, and regard all who hold it as strangers to the church. (5)

107 This is the encyclical issued by the Council of Seleucia September 27, 359, and repre-
sents the thinking of the Acacians. It is also found at Ath. Syn. 29.3-9; Soc. 2.40.8-^.

SEMI-ARIANS

471

However, Like the apostle who said, “He is the image of the invisible God, ” 108
we plainly confess the likeness of the Son to the Father.

25, 6 109 We confess and believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of
heaven and earth, things visible and invisible.

25,7 And we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of
him without passion before all ages, the divine Word, only-begotten God of
God, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, by whom all things were made, things
in heaven and things on earth, whether visible or invisible. (8) We believe
that, to take away sin, he took flesh of the holy Virgin at the close of the ages
and was made man. He suffered for our sins, rose again, was taken up into
heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with
glory to judge the quick and the dead.

25.9 And we believe also in one Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ also termed the Paraclete, and whom he promised to send to the
disciples after his ascension; and he sent him, and through him sanctifies the
believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The catholic church knows that those who preach anything other than this
creed are not her own.

25.10 The readers will recognize that the creed formerly issued at Sir-
mium 110 in the presence of his Reverence, our emperor, is of a meaning
equivalent to this.

Those who are here have signed this creed: Basil, Mark, George the bishop
of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatian, and most of the bishops of the west.

I, George, bishop of Alexandria, have issued this creed. My profession is
as it is set forth here.

I, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, have issued this creed. My profession is as
it is set forth here. Uranius, bishop of Tyre, Eutychius, bishop of Eleutherop-
olis, Zoilus, bishop of Larissa in Syria, Seras, bishop of Par aetonium in
Libya, Paul, bishop of Emisa, Eustathius, bishop of Epiphania, Irenaeus,
bishop of Tripoli in Phoenicia, Eusebius, bishop of Seleucia in Syria, Euty-
chianus, bishop of Patara in Lyda, Eustathius, bishop of Pinari and Sidymi,
Basil, bishop ofKaunia in Lydia, Peter, bishop of Hyppus in Palestine, Ste-
phen, bishop ofPtolemais in Libya, Eudoxius, bishop of. . . Apollonius, bishop
of Oxyrynchus, Theoctistus, bishop of Ostradne, Leontius, bishop of < Tripoli

108 Col 1:15.

109 Hahn pp. 206-208.

110 I.e., the creed of the Second Council of Sirmium, issued in 351.

472

SEMI-ARIANS

in > Lydia, Theodosius, bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia, Phoebus, bishop of
Polychalandus in Lydia, Magnus, bishop of Themisi in Phrygia, Evagrius,
bishop ofMitylene of the islands, Cyrion, bishop ofDoliche, Augustus, bishop
of Euphrates, Poly deuces, bishop ...of the second province of Libya, Pancras,
bishop of Pelusium, (7) Phillocadus, bishop of Augustus in the province of
Phrygia, Serapion, bishop of Antipyrgus in Libya, Eusebius, bishop ofSebaste
in Palestine, Heliodorus, bishop ofSozusa hi Pentapolis, Ptolemais, bishop of
Thmuis in Augustamnica, (8) Abgar, bishop of Cyrus in Euphrasia, Exere-
sius, bishop of Gerasa, Arabio, bishop of Adrai, Charisius, bishop of Azotus,
Elisha, bishop ofDiocletianopolis, Germanus, bishop of Petra, Baruch, bishop
of Arabia; forty-three bishops in alL m So far the document issued by the
above-mentioned Semi-Arians and Arians.

27,1 You men of sense who have gone through this and the other creeds,
be aware that the effort of both parties is a fraud and nothing orthodox,
with even a bit of the godly confession of faith. (2) For the Lord says, “What
ye have heard in the ear, that proclaim ye upon the housetops.” 112 And as
the holy apostle says, “Speak every man truth with his neighbor”; 113 but the
prophet speaks out to expose their mischief, “He speaketh peace with his
neighbor, but in his heart hath he war.” 114 (3) In the same way, when these
followers of Acacius wanted to cast off the restraint of the true confession
after their separation from Basil and his adherents, they issued a spurious,
easily refutable, and entirely misleading creed, so that, if they wanted to
fool people, they could make a proper confession in the words we have
given — (4) but if they chose to reveal the banefulness of their heresy they
would have this declaration available, which is midway between the two
positions and possible as a confession of each of their creations.

27,5 But since, in this Acacian faction which was separated from the
other two — I have said that the Arian party was divided into three groups.
Eudoxius, Germanus, George of Alexandria and Euzoeus of Antioch made
one division, (6) and similarly Eleusius, Eustathius, George of Laodicea,
Silvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople and many others made
another. (7) But again Acacius, as I said, Melitius, Eutychius and certain
others formed another group of their own. And the whole thing was pure
trickery. (8) What each of them believed, the other believed. But they
were divided into schisms among themselves, either from mutual hatred,

111 The list contains 37 names; some have fallen out.

112 Matt 10:27.

113 Eph 4:25.

114 Ps 27:3.

SEMI-ARIANS

473

since Cyril of Jerusalem was furious with Eutychius and Eutychius with
Cyril, but Cyril was in with Basil of Galate, Anianus the newly consecrated
bishop of Antioch, and George of Laodicea — (9) but why wear myself out
distinguishing between the factions and describing them? I shall go on to
the counter-arguments, and the refutation of the guile of each of them.
First, though, I must speak of what happened later, for this contributed to
the goodness of some, and the wickedness of others.

28,1 For when Melitius was consecrated at Antioch by Acacius’
faction — and for Acacius this has been the beginning of his retreat, if
only slightly, from his heretical views. By his support of Melitius’ election
he shows that, of all things, he is in the orthodox camp. As I was saying,
when Melitius was consecrated by Acacius’ own friends they thought he
shared their opinion. But as many report of him, he turned out not to. (2)
For at present, since Melitius has been hounded and expelled from his
see, those who favor him and his party are gradually and progressively
becoming orthodox for God’s sake, due to the protracted length of the
banishment. (3) For there were more [orthodox] laity than there were
laity of the < other* > party. 115 They profess their faith in the Son admira-
bly through their episcopal elections, and do not reject the homoousion.
Indeed they are prepared to confess and not deny it, they say, if there
can just be a last council. (4) In fact the most honorable Melitius himself,
who was consecrated at Antioch by the Arians around Melitius, gave a
sort of first installment of this in church, in his first sermon at Antioch,
and in orthodox terms, or so say the majority. I offer his sermon here, as
follows:

A Copy of Melitius’ Sermon 116

2g,i The most wise Ecclesiastes says, “The end of any speaking is better than
its beginning. " 117 How much better and safer is it to cease from a struggle over
words than to begin one, especially as the same Ecclesiastes says, “This wis-
dom of the poor is set at naught, and his words are not heard. ” 118 (2) < But >
since “The body is not one member, but many, ” 119 “All the members care one

115 Holl: tou Tfjs <aW.v]i;> ovvoSou; MSS: tou -rijc; ouvoSou.

116 This sermon appears to be referred to at Theodoret H. E. 2.31.8, where, however,
Melitius speaks at a sort of public debate before the emperor.

117 Eccles 7:8.

118 Eccles 9:16.

119 1 Cor 12:14.

474

SEMI-ARIANS

for another that there be no schism in the body ,” 120 and “The head cannot
say to the feet, I have no need of you, ” 121 but “God hath tempered the body
together, giving the more abundant honor to the part which Lacks, ” 122 it goes
without saying that one cannot avoid being troubled by the troubling of the
whole body.

29,3 But how should one begin to speak to you? Plainly, it is fitting that
whoever embarks on speech or action should make peace its beginning and
end, and that those who begin with it should also close with it. “For this shall
turn to your salvation,” says the apostle, “through your prayer and the sup-
ply of the Spirit ” 123 which Jesus gives to those who believe in him. ( 4 ) And
whether one speaks words of edification, “consolation, comfort of love, or
fellowship of the Spirit, ” 124 he comes in the peace of God — not, indeed, for
all without discrimination, but peace “for those who love the Law ," 125 as
the prophet says. Not the written Law, the “image and shadow of things to
come, ” 126 but the spiritual law which wisely reveals the outcome of the things
that were foretold. ( 5 ) “For peace,” says the scripture, “is multiplied to them
that love thee, and they have none occasion of stumbling. ” 127

Plainly, for those who hate peace, the occasion of stumbling remains, and
it behooves those who long to be free from them to hold the love of the Lord
before them as a shield. “For he himself is our peace, who hath made both
one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity of the
flesh, the Law of commandments contained in ordinances .” 128 ( 6 ) Nor is it
possible to keep the commandment of the Lord without a prior love of God —
for “If ye love me,” says Christ, “keep my commandments.” 129 Nor can the
eyes or heart be enlightened unless the commandment enlightens them, for
the scripture says, “The commandment of the Lord is clear, and giveth light
unto the eyes. ” 130 Nor can one speak any truth unless he has Christ within
him as the Speaker, in the words of him who says, “since ye seek a proof
of Christ speaking in me” 131 — or rather, not simply “speaking in me,” but,

120 1 Cor 12:25.

121 1 Cor 12:21.

122 1 Cor 12:24.

123 Phil 1:19.

124 Cf. Phil 2:1.

125 Cf. Ps 118:165.

126 CfHeb 8:15; 10:1.

127 Ps 118:165.

128 Eph 2:14-15.

129 John 14:15.

130 Ps 18:9.

131 2 Cor 13:3.

SEMI-ARLANS

475

“having mercy in me." (7) “Let thy mercy and thy salvation come upon me,”
says the scripture, “and I shall make answer unto them that rebuke me ,” 1,32
though this cannot be unless one “seek his statutes.” 133 For those who are
not so disposed, <or> apparently so, there is shame in his rebukes, and they
cannot say, “Take from me shame and rebuke .’’ 134 Instead the word of truth
is taken out of his mouth, so that there is nothing more for him who prays
< than >, “Take not the word of thy truth out of my mouth .” 133

30,1 And when is this? When < one > does not continually observe the
Law — when one does not journey on open ground. For one’s “heart must be
broadened ” 133 if one is to have room for the Christ who “walks within him, ” 137
whose glory, not men but the heavens declare, for “The heavens declare the
glory of God” 133 — or rather, the Father himself declares by saying, “This is my
Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased .” 133 (2) But one cannot confess
this [Son] “if he haughtily speaketh iniquity ” 140 to his neighbor, if he joins the
band of the antichrists and adopts 141 their name, abandoning the band and
name of the Christians, of whom it is said, “Touch not mine anointed ones. ” 142
(3) For “Who is a liar, ” the scripture asks, “save he that denieth that Jesus is
the Christ? This,” it says, “is the antichrist. For whosoever denieth the Son, the
same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son acknowledged
the Father also. That which ye have heard from the beginning, ” it says, “let
this abide in you. And if that abideth in you which ye have heard from the
beginning ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father .” 143

30,4 But we shall “abide" when we confess before God and his elect
angels — indeed, confess before kings, and not be ashamed, for the scripture
says, “I have spoken of thy testimonies before kings and was not ashamed .” 144
[We shall abide when we confess] that the Son of God is God of God, One
of One, Only-begotten of Ingenerate, the elect Offspring of his Begetter and
a Son worthy of him who has no beginning; the ineffable Interpreter of the

132 Ps 118:41-42.

133 Ps 118:56; 94; 145; 155.

134 Cf. Ps 118:22.

135 Ps 118:43.

136 Cf. Ps 118:32 (2 Cor 6:11).

137 Cf. Lev 26:12 (2 Cor 6:16).

138 Ps 18:2.

139 Matt 3:17.

140 Ps 72:8.

141 Holl: rd^eiev, R: Y.aXi’Jiw, MSS: oiioXoyvjiTEiEV.

142 Ps 104:15.

143 1 John 2:22-24.

144 Ps 118:46.

476

SEMI-ARIANS

Ineffable, the Word, and the Wisdom and Power of Him who transcends
wisdom and power, beyond anything that the tongue can utter, beyond any
thought the mind can initiate. ( 5 ) He is the perfect and abiding Offspring of
Him who is perfect, and abides the same — not an overflow of the Father or
a bit or piece of the Father, but come forth without passion and entire, from
him who has lost none of what he had. ( 6 ) And because <the> Son is, and
is catted, the “Word,” he is by no means to be conceived of as the Father’s
voice or verbal expression. For he subsists in himself and acts, and by him
and in him are ait things. Similarly, although he is Wisdom as well, he is
not to be conceived of as the Father’s thought, or as a movement and activ-
ity of his reason, but as an Offspring who is Like the Father and bears the
exact impress of the Father. ( 7 ) For the Father, God, has sealed him; and he
neither inheres in another nor subsists by himself, but < is > an Offspring at
work, who has made this universe and preserves it. This is sufficient to free
us from the error of the Greeks, the willful worship of the Jews, and the heresy
of the sectarians.

31,1 But since some pervert the sense of the scriptural expressions, inter-
pret them otherwise than is fitting and understand neither the meaning of
the words nor the nature of the facts, they dare to deny the Son’s divinity
because they stumble at the mention of creation in Proverbs, “The Lord cre-
ated me the beginning of his ways, for his works .” 145 (They should follow the
Spirit who gives life, and not the letter which kills, for “The Spirit giveth life. ") 146
( 2 ) Let me also, then, venture on a short discussion of this, not because it
has <not > been fully discussed by those who have spoken before me — to say
this, one would be mad! — and not because you are in need of a teacher, for
“Ye yourselves are taught of God, ” 147 but so that I may be “manifest in your
consciences .’’ 148 For I am one of those who desire to “impart unto you some
spiritual gift. ” 149

31,3 Believe me, neither elsewhere in the scripture nor here do the words
of scripture contradict each other, even though, to those of unsound faith or
weak wits, they may seem to be in conflict. Believe me also, it is not possible to
find in this world an example adequate in itself to explain clearly the nature
of the Only-begotten. ( 4 ) And for this reason the scripture employs many
ideas and terms with reference to the Only-begotten, to help us grasp things

145 Prov 8:22.

146 2 Cor 3:6.

147 1 Thes 4:9.

148 2 Cor 5:11.

149 Rom 1:11.

SEMI-ARIANS

477

that are above us with the aid of things familiar to us; to imagine things we
do not know by means of things we do; and to advance, gently and by easy
stages, from the seen to the unseen.

31,5 Believers in Christ, then, should < know > that the Son is like the
Father, since he who is “through all," and by whom all things in heaven and
earth were made, is the “image” of him who is “above all. ”* 50 But [ they should
know] that he is an image, not as an inanimate object is the image of a living
thing or as a process is the image of an art, or a finished product the image
of a process, but <as> an offspring is the image of its parent. (6) And [ they
should know] that the generation of the Only-begotten before the ages may
not lawfully be portrayed < along the lines of> bodily human generation.
And as < the Son is the * > Father’s < wisdom * > in the pattern of the wisdom
which embraces human thoughts, and though he is certainly not a nonentity
and non-existent, the scripture made use of both terms, that of creation and
that of generation, of “Fie created me” and “He begot me.” This was not to
give the appearance of saying contraries about the same things and at the
same time, but to show the real and enduring existence of the Only-begotten
through “created, ” and his special and individual character through “begot. ”
(7) For he says, “I proceeded forth from the Father and am come. " 151 The very
word, “wisdom," however, is enough to exclude any idea of passion.

32,1 But whither are we bound with our failure to remember him who
said, “0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out !” 152 (2)
We have the Spirit of truth for our teacher, whom the Lord gave us after his
assumption into the heavens, that we might “know the things that are freely
given to us of God .” 153 In him “we likewise speak, not in words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth, comparing spiritual things
with spiritual .” 154 In him we serve and worship, for his sake we are despised,
in him the prophets prophesied, in him by whom we are brought to the Son,
the righteous have been guided.

But why do we meddle with nature? Am I speaking as with carnal persons,
not spiritual? (3) “We cannot speak unto you as unto spiritual but as unto
carnal ,’’ 155 was said of others. It is to be feared that, from our contention

150 Col 1:15; Eph 4:6; Rom 9:5.

151 John 8:42.

152 Rom 11:33.

153 1 Cor 2:12.

154 1 Cor 2:13.

155 Cf. 1 Cor 3:1.

478

SEMI-ARIANS

over the incomprehensible and dispute about the unsearchable, we may fall
into the depths of impiety. “And I said, I will get wisdom, and it was farther
from me than that which was before, and its depth was unsearchable; who
shall find it out ?” 156 Let us be mindful of him who said, (4) “We know in part,
and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away. ” 157 “If any man think that he knoweth, he
knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know .” 156 It is therefore to be feared that,
if we attempt to speak of what we cannot, we may no longer be permitted to
speak of what we can. We must speak because of faith, not believe because of
what is spoken, for scripture says, “I believed, and therefore did I speak. ” 159

32,5 Thus when we inquire, and try to contend, about the generation of
God although we cannot describe our own, how can we avoid the risk that
he who has given us not only “the tongue of instruction," but also the “knowl-
edge of when to say a word, ” 160 may condemn us to silence for our rashness
of speech. (6) This was accomplished in the case of the blessed Zacharias. As
he disbelieved the angel who had announced the child’s conception, tested
the grace and power of God by human reasonings, and despaired of his abil-
ity to father a child in his old age by an aged wife, what did he say? (7) “How
shall I know that this will be? For I am old, and my wife well stricken in
years .” 161 And thus, since he was told, “Thou shalt be dumb and not able to
speak ,” 162 he could not speak when he left [the temple].

33,1 We therefore cease to wrangle over the questions in dispute and the
matters that are beyond us, and hold fast what we have received. Who dare
be puffed up over knowledge, when even he who was vouchsafed “revela-
tions, ” who was caught up “to the third heaven" and “heard unspeakable
words,” was recalled to his senses by his “thorn in the flesh,” so as not to be
“puffed up above measure ?” 163 (2) The very prophet who said, “I believed,
and therefore have I spoken,” also said, “I was afflicted “ — and not simply
“afflicted,” but “sore afflicted .” 164 The nearer one’s apparent approach to

156 Eccles 7:23-24.

157 1 Cor 13:9-10.

158 1 Cor 8:2.

159 Ps 115:1 (2 Cor 4:13).

160 Isa 50:4.

161 Luke 1:18.

162 Luke 1:20.

163 Cf. 2 Cor 12:12; 14.

164 Cf. Ps 115:1.

SEMI-ARIANS

479

knowledge, the more should he reckon with his humanity. Hear the prophet
say of him, “I said in my astonishment, All men are liars. ” 165

33.3 Since we have the Teacher of the truth, let us make no further use
of the teachings of men. Let us realize <our limitation, believe* >, and waste
no more effort on “modes," or anything else. As we cannot say how the Son
was generated or describe the mode of the Father’s generation, we <must>
consider “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything
made ” 166 as sufficient for teaching.

33.4 The Lord grant that with a spirit like Abraham’s, who said, “Now
I have begun to speak with the Lord, though I am dust and ashes 167 — and
not “exalted as the cedars of Lebanon, ” 168 since equable, peaceable wisdom
is not attained “by words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which faith
teacheth 169 — we inquire (5) only into what we must do to please our God
and Father, and along with him, and together with him, < the Son > in the
Holy Spirit, < to whom > be glory, might, honor and power, now, and forever,
and to the ages of ages. Amen.

The end of Melitius’ sermon

34,1 To those < who had been eager > to bring Melitius from Pontus,
it seemed that this < had > not < been said > to please or placate most of
the Arians, but to annoy them. They then egged the emperor on, plotted
against Melitius for not having confessed that the Son is a creature in the
fullest sense of the word, and expelled him from his see. (2) He was driven
into exile overnight, 170 and is in exile to this day. Even now he resides in
his own homeland, a man esteemed and beloved, especially because of
the things I am now told that he has accomplished, and which are the
cause of the confession his subjects in Antioch now make. They no longer
make even a passing mention of the word, “creature,” but confess that the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-essential — three entities, one
essence, one Godhead. (3) This is the true faith which we have received
from the ancients, the faith of the prophets, Gospels and apostles, which
our fathers and bishops confessed when they met at the Council of Nicaea
in the presence of the great and most blessed emperor, Constantine. And

165 Ps 115:2.

166 John 1:3.

167 Gen 18:27.

168 Cf. Ps 36:35.

169 1 Cor 2:13.

170 Melitius was bishop of Antioch for less than a month, cf. Chrys. Panegyric on St.
Melitius 1, PG 50,516.

480

SEMI-ARIANS

may the most honored Melitius himself make the same confession as his
subjects at Antioch and < those > who make it in certain other places!
(4) 171 For there are also some, apparently in communion with him and
his supporters, who blaspheme the Holy Spirit; and although they speak
correctly of the Son, they regard the Spirit as a creature and altogether
different from the Father. Later I shall give full information about them,
as accurately as I can, in the refutation of the heresy they hold.

35, r As I said, I hold Melitius in honor for the good things I have heard
of him. And indeed his life is holy in the other respects, he is well con-
ducted, and is beloved in every way by the laity for his way of life which
all admire. (2) Some, however — I do not know whether they are inspired
by enmity, or jealousy, or a desire to magnify themselves — [some] have
said something about him to the effect that the rebellion against him was
not over his orthodoxy, but because of canonical matters and the quar-
rel between him and his priests, and because he received certain persons
whom he had previously expelled and condemned. 172 (3) But I have paid
no attention to this because, as I indicated above, of the rectifications
and the confessions of the faith which, at long last, are being made daily
among his companions.

For I must tell the truth in this regard, as far as my weakness in every-
thing allows. (4) Suppose that he overlooked < something > in the rush of
the words of his exposition — I cannot say. Or suppose that, in all inno-
cence, a word escaped him — God knows. In one way, two or three remarks
in this exposition are questionable — his treating at all, even nominally, of
the Son of God in his divine nature as a “creature,” and his saying, “above
wisdom,” and perhaps something else.

364 But I shall say a little about their allegations and get finished with
this discussion. Tell us, people, why would it disturb you to say that the
homoeousion is the homoousion? Confess your faith plainly, to let us
know that you belong to us, and are not strangers. Brass can be of an
essence Like gold, tin of an essence Like silver, lead of an essence Like iron —
but the story you have concocted and turned out will not fool us. (2) For if
you want to fool people, you < make > the false excuses that we must not
say, “homoousion,” or we will make the Son identical with the Father, or
the Spirit identical with the Son and the Father. Here too the argument

171 This paragraph is numbered 5 in Holt

172 Philost 5.5; Jer. Chron. ed. Helm pp. 241-242.

SEMI-ARIANS

481

you have invented fails. (3) We say, not, “identically essential,” 173 but, “co-
essential,” to confess, not that < the Son > is any different from the Father,
but that he is God actually begotten of God — not originating from some
other source or from nothing, but come forth < from > the Father. He was
begotten at no time, without beginning, and inexpressibly, is forever with
the Father and never ceases to be, but is begotten, is not the Father’s kins-
man, not his progenitor.

36,4 For “homo” means that there are two entities, < but > not different
in nature. Thus the true union [of the two essences] revealed by the Holy
Spirit, through the expression in the mouths of those who use the expres-
sion. And you see that you will have no excuse, and cannot speak against
orthodoxy and frighten your followers who accept your false argument,
[by claiming] that whoever says, “homoousion,” has professed faith in an
identity. (5) No way! [That there are] two will be shown by "homoousion”;
that the Offspring is not different from the Father will also be indicated
by “homoousion.”

36,6 But because of the word, “essence,” you will be convicted of fab-
ricating the homoeousion; and because of your altered confession of faith
you will be condemned for not meaning what you say, but falsifying the
teaching of what you mean. For if you mean that the Son is not of the
Father at all, but is Like him instead, you are a long way from the truth.

(7) If one chooses to decorate a relief with any materials, no matter which,
he cannot make it the same as the relief; indeed, the work is one of fab-
rication. But a thing begotten of some thing preserves the likeness of
genus and the sameness of species which characterize legitimate sonship.

(8) Now if you say that the Son is not begotten of the Father himself but
must be outside of him, and call him “of like essence” to do him a favor,
you have given him nothing, but have been deprived of his favor. (9) "He
that honoreth not the Son as the Father honoreth him,” says the holy
apostle, “the wrath of God abideth on him.” 174 And again, he who said,
“I proceeded forth from the Father and am come,” 175 [said] “I am in the
Father and the Father in me” 176 in the same breath as, “Philip, he that hath
seen me hath seen the Father.” 177

173 agooucnov.

174 John 5:23; 3:36.

175 John 8:42.

176 John 14:10.

177 John 14:9.

482

SEMI-ARIANS

37,1 Since I have often discussed these things, I believe that will be
enough of the same refutations here. The same ones I applied earlier to
the root that put forth their heresy are capable of demolishing these Semi-
Arians here — [them], and the ones who split off from them, (2) Acacius’
friends and the others who issued a creed at Seleucia in Isauria which is
other than the true one. Because I wanted bring it to light, I have also
inserted the whole of the creed they issued at the end, after the creed of
Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea which was written as representing
them all. (3) But lest it appear that when I put this in the second place I
did it from forgetfulness — because it did its fearful damage secretly and
accepted a gag as though to < restrain its own teachings > with a bridle in
the time of hypocrisy — I shall also say a little about it and its authors, the
allies of Acacius, Euzoeus, Eutychius and the rest. (4) And the document
before us has plainly altered the confession of the truth. But lest it be said
that I have slandered these people, let me point out what was discovered
and what, as time went by, became evident in this group of theirs.

37,5 One of them is Euzoeus of Caesarea, who is their disciple and
Acacius’ successor. [That was] after the consecration of Philumen, who
was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem; and the consecration of the elderly
Cyril who was consecrated by Eutychius and his friends; and the consecra-
tion of Gelasius who, once more, was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem.
He was the son of Cyril’s sister. After the consecration of these three and
their suspension because of the quarrel between them, Euzoeus was con-
secrated in his turn. (6) Gemellinus was also one of them, and Philip of
Scythopolis, and Athanasius of Scythopolis. These not only teach Arian-
ism publicly and not in secret, as though they had never heard of anything
better; they do battle for their heresy, what is more, and persecute those
who teach the truth. They are no longer willing merely to refute orthodox
believers verbally, but subject them to feuds, violence and murder. For
they have done harm, not in one city and country but in many. (38,1)
< And* > this Lucius, who has done so much to those who confess the Son
of God at Alexandria, is < one of them* >.

Who, if he has God’s good sense, can fail to see < the dreadful things* >
their fraternity < is doing* > every day? They preach in public that the
Son of God is a creature, and that the Holy Spirit is a creature as well, and
entirely different from the essence of God. (2) < There is no need for me
even to speak of all that* > Eudoxius and his friends < are doing* > since
George met his shameful end at Alexandria and Eudoxius received the
headship, and the perquisites of high office. < He > was one of the group
around Hypatius and Eunomius, and to flatter them pretended to be

PNEUMATOMACHI

483

convinced; < but >, though he kept it a secret, he never ceased to believe
in the doctrines of the Anomoeans. (3) And he himself promoted Demo-
philus, Hypatius and Eunomius, men whom they had once exiled for this
criminal exposition [of the creed]. They were disciples of Aetius, who was
once exiled to the Taurus. He was made a deacon by George of Alexan-
dria, and the root of the Anomoeans grew up from him. (4) As there is one
thorny stem and the same root, but it < bears* > schisms of different kinds
as though on each thorn, so it is with their malice. It has disgorged this
filth into the world < by putting forth* >, differently at different times, the
misinterpretations of this heretical sect, which keep getting worse. I shall
say this again later about these Anomoeans.

38,5 But I think that for now, this much will do. Since we have scotched
and maimed this sect like a horrid serpent let us stomp on it, leave it dead
after trampling it, and turn away to hurry on to the rest, likewise calling
on God to help us keep our promise.

Against Pneumatomachi. 1 54, but 74 of the Series

1,1 A sort of monstrous, half-formed people with two natures, as the
mythographers < described > the Centaurs, Pans and Sirens, have been
born to these Semi-Arians and orthodox believers, and have risen up
against us. (2) The Arians of them declare the Son is not fully a creature,
but a Son begotten outside of time. But they say with a hint of time that
he < has been in existence > from of old 2 until now, and have thus by no
means abandoned the formula originally spat out by Arius, which said
that “There was a time when He was not” but that He “by whom things
were made” 3 was before all time”; and they blaspheme the Holy Spirit < by
saying that the Spirit is a creature >. (3) Others hold the truly orthodox
view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father and has never ceased
to exist, but has been begotten 4 without beginning and not in time. But all
of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead
with the Father and the Son.

1 This Sect is Epiphanius’ comment on a controversy in which he was deeply involved.
The bulk of it is an excerpt from his Ancoratus, 65,1-73,9.

2 Holl era odcovo?, MSS era oupavou.

3 John 1:3.

4 Holl eot! YEysvvjpEvoi;, MSS auro YEyEvvjpEvov.

484

PNEUMATOMACHI

1,4 I often have discussed this extensively, and have given an authentic
proof, at considerable length, in every Sect, that he is to be called, “Lord,”
with the Father and the Son. For the “Spirit of the Lord filleth the whole
world” 5 — the “Spirit of truth,” 6 the Spirit of God. He is called the Spirit of
the Lord, who “proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son,” 7 “giveth
gifts severally as he will,” 8 "searcheth the deep things of God,” 9 and is with
the Father and the Son, baptizing, sealing, and perfecting him whom he
has sealed. (5) But to avoid assuming a burden here, I shall offer, for the
reader’s instruction and the enjoyment of those who have been vouch-
safed the Holy Spirit, the things I have already said in opposition to the
Spirit’s blasphemers in my long work on the faith, which I wrote [in the
form of a letter] to Pamphylia. It is as follows:

Excerpt from the Ancoratus 10

2,1 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ hath appeared, teaching us that,
denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should Live soberly, godly and
righteously in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the glori-
ous appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works .” * 11 (2) He “blotted out the handwrit-
ing of ordinances, which was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing
it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show
of them openly, triumphing over them in it. ” 12 “He hath broken the gates of
brass and burst the bars of iron in sunder. ” 13 He made the light of life visible
again, stretching forth his hand, showing the way, baring the foundations of
heaven and demanding a dwelling place in Paradise once more. He therefore
also caused “the righteousness of the Law " 14 “to dwell in us, ” 15 (3) and has
given us the Spirit, so that we may know him and the truth about him. That

5 Wisd Sol 1:7.

6 John 16:13.

7 Cf. John 15:26; 16:14.

8 Cf. 1 Cor 12:11.

9 1 Cor 2:10.

10 Anc. 65,1-73,9.

11 Tit 2:11-14.

12 Col 2:14-15.

13 Cf. Isa 45:2.

14 Cf. Rom 8:4.

15 Cf John 1:14.

PNEUMATOMACHI

485

is, he has become the beginning and end of our life, our “law of righteous-
ness ,” 16 “law of faith ," 17 and “law of the Spirit, ” m free from the “law of the
flesh of sin. " 19

2,4 Therefore “I delight in the law of God after the inward man. ” 20 But
our inward man is Christ, provided that he dwells in us. ( 5 ) For it is he who,
by dying became our way to life “that they which live should not henceforth
live unto themselves, but unto" the Cause of life, “ who died for them, and
rose again .’’ 21 “Mindful of the oath which,” as David said, “he swore many
generations before ” 22 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their transgressions unto them. ” 23

2,6 “For it pleased the Father than in him should all fullness dwell, and
by him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the
blood of the cross .” 24 ( 7 ) He came, then, “for the dispensation of the fullness
of the times,” as he promised to Abraham and the other saints, “to gather in
one all things in him, things which are in heaven and things which are on
earth .” 25 ( 8 ) There was estrangement and enmity “during the [ time of the ]
forbearance of God ,” 26 but he “reconciled them in the body of his flesh, mak-
ing both one through him. For he came to be our peace ” 27 and “as he who
broke down the middle wall of partition, who abolished enmity in his flesh,
the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make the twain
one new man in himself .” 28 And he commanded that the gentiles be “of the
same body, and fellow partakers and fellow heirs of the promise ” 29 by say-
ing, “Come unto me, allye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest .” 30 ( 9 ) And so “while I was weak, through the flesh ,” 31 a Savior was sent
to me “in the likeness of sinful flesh ,” 32 and performed this gracious work, to

16 Rom 9:31.

17 Rom 3:27

18 Rom 8:2

19 Rom 7:25.

20 Rom 7:22.

21 2 Cor 5:15.

22 Cf. Heb 5:9; Ps 104:8-9.

23 2 Cor 5:19.

24 Col 1:19-20.

25 Eph 1:10.

26 Rom 3:26.

27 Eph 2:14.

28 Eph 2:14-15.

29 Eph 3:6.

30 Matt 12:28.

31 Rom 8:3.

32 Rom 8:3.

486

PNEUMATOMACHI

“ redeem " 33 me from slavery, from corruption, from death.. And he became
my “righteousness, sanctification and redemption .” 34 (10) Righteousness, by
destroying sin through faith in him; sanctification, by setting us free through
water and Spirit, and by his word; redemption, by giving his blood, giving
himself for me as the atonement of a true lamb, an expiation for the world’s
cleansing, for the reconciliation of all in heaven and on earth, and so fulfill-
ing, at the appointed time, the “mystery hidden before the ages and genera-
tions. " 35 (11) And he “shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like
unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to
subdue all things unto himself,” 36 for “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily ." 31

3.1 Christ, the vessel of wisdom and of the Godhead, therefore as mediator
“reconciles all things to God in him ,” 33 “not imputing their trespasses,” 39 but
fulfilling the hidden mysteries by faith in his covenant, which was foretold by
the Law and the prophets. He is declared to be the Son of God, but called the
Son of David, for he is both God and man, the “mediator between God and
men, ” 40 the true “house of God, ” the “holy priesthood. ” 41 He is the giver of the
Holy Spirit, who in turn regenerates and renews all things for God; for “The
Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, even
the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father. ” 42

3.2 When the rain is absorbed by trees and plants it engenders a body,
each in the likeness of its fruit. The oil grows rich in the olive by receiving its
essence from it, the sweet wine darkens in the vine, the fig sweetens on the fig
tree, and [ the rain ] will generate new growth according to its kind in every
seed. (3) So, I believe, God’s Word was made flesh in Mary and became man
in the seed of Abraham, in accordance with the promise, “We have found the
Messiah of whom Moses did write. ” 43 As Moses said, “Let my word descend
as the rain, 1,44 (4) and David, “Let him come down as dew on a fleece and

33 Cf. Gal 4:5.

34 1 Cor 1:30.

35 Col 1:26.

36 Phil 3:21.

37 Col 2:9.

38 2 Cor 5:18.

39 2 Cor 5:19.

40 1 Tim 2:5.

41 1 Pet 2:5.

42 John 1:14.

43 John 1:41; 45.

44 Deut 32:2.

PNEUMATOMACHI

487

like drops watering the earth ’’,- 45 the wool will then increase the progeny of
the fleece when it receives the dew. But when the earth receives the rain, since
it receives it by the Lord’s command it will increase the fruit for which hus-
bandmen hope, yielding its essence gladly, but in eagerness to receive more
from him. ( 5 ) So, when the Virgin Mary asked, “How shall I know that this
will be to me ?” 46 she was told, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon thee, and the
power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that which shall
be bom of thee shall be holy, and called, Son of the Most High ." 41

3,6 Christ speaks in the angel, and in his fashioning of himself the Lord
refashions himself by “taking the form of a servant.” 49. And Mary absorbs
the Word for conception as the earth absorbs the rain; but by taking mortal
nature God’s Word makes himself a holy fruit. ( 7 ) He was [born] of her who
absorbed him, like earth and fleece — the fruit of the true hope, awaited by
the saints as Elizabeth said, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed
is the fruit of thy womb .” 4,3 This fruit] the Word received from humankind,
and suffered although he was impassible. ( 8 ) He is the “living bread which
came down from heaven ’’ 50 and gives life. He is the fruit of the true olive, the
oil of anointing and compounding which, as a type, Moses described . 51 He
is the “true vine ” 52 which only the Father tends, who has produced a joyous
vintage for us. ( 9 ) He is the “living water, after taking which < the > man
that thirsteth shall not thirst again, but it is in his belly springing up into
everlasting life. ” 53

The new husbandmen have taken of this water and given it to the world,
while the old husbandmen have withered and perished from unbelief. ( 10 ) By
his own blood he hallows the gentiles, but by his own Spirit he leads the
called to the heavens. “As many as live by the Spirit of God, they live to God. ” 54
Those who are not so led are still reckoned as dead, and these are called
“natural” or “carnal ” 55 ( 11 ) Christ commands us, then, to abandon the works
of the flesh which are the strongholds of sin, to put to death the members of
death by his grace, and to receive the Holy Spirit which we did not have —

45 Ps 71:6.

46 Luke 1:34.

47 Luke 1:35.

48 Phil 2:7.

49 Luke 1:40.

50 John 6:51.

51 Cf. Exod 30:22-24.

52 John 15:1.

53 John 4:10; 13; 14.

54 Rom 8:14.

55 1 Cor 2:14; 3:1; 3.

488

PNEUMATOMACHI

the Spirit who gives me life, though I am long dead and, unless I receive him,
shall have died. For without his Spirit, all are dead. ( 12 ) “If, therefore, his
Spirit be in us, he that raised him from the dead shall quicken our mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in us .” 56 In my opinion, however, both dwell
in the righteous — Christ, and his Spirit.

4.1 If it is believed that Christ, as “God of God, ” is of the Father, and
his Spirit is of Christ or of both — as Christ says, “who proceedeth from the
Father ," 57 and, “He shall receive of me" 58 — and if it is believed that Christ is
of the Holy Spirit — the angel’s words are, “That which is conceived in her is
of the Holy Spirit” 5,3 — [ then ] I know the Mystery that redeems me by faith, by
hearing alone, by love for him who has come to me. ( 2 ) For God knows him-
self, Christ proclaims himself, the Holy Spirit reveals himself to the worthy.

4.2 A Trinity is proclaimed in the holy scriptures and is believed in with
all seriousness, without contention, <by> the hearing of the creeds. From
this faith comes salvation by grace — “ righteousness is by faith without the
works of the Law .” 60 ( 3 ) < For > the scripture says that “the Spirit of Christ”
is given to those who are saved “by the hearing of faith .” 61 ( 4 ) And in my
opinion, as I am taught by the scriptures, the catholic faith is declared by the
voices of its heralds to be as follows:

Three Holies, three of equal holiness; three Actuals, three of equal actual-
ity; three Informed, three with the same form; three at work, three at one
work; three Subsistents, three of the same subsistence, in co-existence. This
is called a holy Trinity, one concord though they are three, one Godhead of
the same essence, the same divinity, the same subsistence, like [generated]
of like, resulting in the equality of the grace of the Father, of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit.

To teach the how of this is left to them. ( 5 ) “No man knoweth the Father
save the Son; neither knoweth any man the Son, save the Father, and he to
whom the Son will reveal him .” 62 But he reveals him through the Holy Spirit.
( 6 ) Thus, whether these Persons, who are three, are of him, from him, or with
him is properly understood by each Person, just as they reveal themselves
as light, fire, wind, and I believe with other visionary likenesses, as the man

56 Rom 8:11.

57 John 15:26.

58 John 16:14.

59 Matt 1:20.

60 Rom 3:28.

61 Gal 3:2.

62 Matt 11:27.

PNEUMATOMACHI

489

reporting them is worthy. ( 7 ) Thus the God who said “Let there be light” at the
beginning “and there was” visible “light ,” 63 is the same God who has given
us the light to see “the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh
into the world” 64 — “Send forth thy light and thy truth, ” 65 says David — and
the same Lord who said, “In the latter days I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh, and their sons shall prophesy, and their daughters, and their young
men shall see visions .” 66 He has therefore shown us three Objects of sacred
worship, of a triple subsistence.

3.1 “I say, ” therefore, “that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, to confirm the promises .” 61 But I understand from the
sacred scriptures that the Holy Spirit is his fellow minister, for the follow-
ing reasons. Christ is sent from the Father; the Holy Spirit is sent. Christ
speaks in the saints; the Holy Spirit speaks. Christ heals; the Holy Spirit heals.
Christ hallows; the Holy Spirit hallows. Christ baptizes in his name; the Holy
Spirit baptizes.

3.2 The scriptures say, “Thou shalt send forth thy Spirit, and thou shalt
renew the face of the earth ,” 63 which is like saying “Thou shalt send forth
thy Word and melt them .” 63 ( 3 ) “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted,”
says the scripture, “the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul
for the work whereunto I have called them. ” 70 This is like saying “The Lord
said, Go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do .” 11
( 4 ) “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia, ” 12 is
equivalent to Christ’s saying, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst
ofwolves." 73 ( 5 ) “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit to lay upon you no greater
burden than these necessary things ,” 14 is equivalent to his saying, “I say, yet
not I, but the Lord, Let the wife not depart from her husband .” 15

5,6 “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Gala-
tia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia, after

63 Gen 1:3.

64 John 1:9.

65 Ps 42:3.

66 Joel 2:28.

67 Rom 15:8.

68 Ps 103:30.

69 Ps 147:7.

70 Acts 13:2.

71 Acts 9:6.

72 Acts 13:4.

73 Matt 10:16.

74 Acts 15:28.

75 1 Cor 7:10.

49 °

PNEUMATOMACHI

they were come to Mysia they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suf-
fered them not, ” 76 is equivalent to Christ’s saying, “Go, baptize all nations, ” 77
<or>, “Carry neither scrip, nor staff, nor shoes .” 78 (7) “Who said to Paul
through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem” 79 — or Agabus’
prophecy, “Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man that owneth this girdle 80 —
is like Paul’s saying, “since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me ,” 81 or,
“Remember the words of the Lord, that he said, It is better to give than to
receive. ” 82

5,8 [Paul’s], “And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit ” 88 is the equiva-
lent of his, “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ .” 84 (9) “Save that the Holy Spirit
witnesseth to me in every city ,” 88 is equivalent to saying “The Lord testif-
eth to my soul that I lie not. ” 86 (10) [ To say], “with power according to the
Spirit of holiness, ” 87 is similar to saying, “Holy is he who rests in the saints. " 88
(11) [ To say], “And circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, ” 89 is similar
to saying, “Andye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,
in the putting off the body of the sins by the circumcision of Christ. " 90

5,12 [To say], “If so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ,” 91 is simi-
lar to saying, “As ye have received Christ, walk ye in him .” 92 And [to say],
“The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word is in my mouth ,” 98 (13)
and “having the firstfruits of the Spirit ,” 94 is similar to saying, “Christ is the
firstfruits .” 98 (14) [To say], “But the Spirit himself maketh intercession for
us ,” 96 is similar to saying “ who is on the right hand of God, who also maketh

76 Acts 16:6-7.

77 Matt 28:19.

78 Matt 10:10; Luke 10:4.

79 Acts 21:4.

80 Acts 21:11.

81 2 Cor 13:3.

82 Acts 20:35.

83 Philem 1; Eph 3:1.

84 Acts 20:23.

85 Cf. Gal 1:20.

86 Cf. Gal 1:20.

87 Rom 1:4.

88 Isa 57:15.

89 Rom 2:29.

90 Col 2:11.

91 Cf. 1 Cor 3:16.

92 Col 2:6.

93 2 Kms 23:2.

94 Rom 8:23.

95 1 Cor 15:23.

96 Rom 8:26.

PNEUMATOMACHI

491

intercession for us ." 97 (15) [To say], “that the offering up of the gentiles may
be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, ” 98 is similar to saying
“Now the Lord sanctify you, that ye may be sincere and without offense at
the day of Christ .’’ 99 (16) [To say], “But God hath revealed them unto us by
his Spirit, ” 100 is similar to saying, “When it pleased God, who separated me
from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in
me ." 101 (17) [To say], “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but
the Spirit which is of God, ” 102 is similar to saying, “Prove your own selves
whether Christ be in you .” 109 (18) [To say], “Ye are the temple of God, and
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you, ” 104 is similar to saying, “I will dwell in them
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people .” 105
6,1 Paul says, moreover, that justification and grace come from both [ the
Son and the Holy Spirit]. [To say], “justified in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ and by the Spirit of our God ” 100 is similar to saying, “Being justified
by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ,” 107 (2) and
“No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit ”; 109 and no one
can receive the Spirit except from the Lord. [To say], “There are diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are differences of administrations, but the
same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God
which worketh all in all, ” 109 “from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the
Lord,” 110 {f) and “Grieve not the Holy Spirit, in whom ye are sealed unto the
day of redemption, " m is similar to saying, “Do we provoke the Lord to jeal-
ousy? Are we stronger than he ?” 112

97 Rom 8:34.

98 Rom 15:16.

99 Phil 1:10.

100 1 Cor 2:10.

101 Gal 1:15.

102 1 Cor 2:12.

103 2 Cor 13:5.

104 1 Cor 2:16.

105 2 Cor 6:16.

106 1 Cor 6:n.

107 Rom 5:1.

108 1 Cor 12:3.

109 1 Cor 12:4-6.

110 2 Cor 3:18.

111 Eph 4:30.

112 1 Cor 10:22.

492

PNEUMATOMACHI

6,4 [To say], “The Spirit speaketh expressly ,” 113 is like saying, “Thus saith
the Lord, the almighty .’’ 114 (5) To say, “The Spirit standeth within you ,” 115 < is
like saying >, “If any man open to me, land the Father will come in and make
our abode with him .” 115

6,6 Isaiah said, “And the Spirit of the Lord is upon him ,’’ 117 but Christ said,
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me, ” 118 “Jesus
of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit ,” 119 or, “The Lord hath
sent me, and his Spirit .” 120 (7) And the voice of the seraphim, which cries,
“Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Sabaoth, ” is an obvious example. 121

6,8 If you hear the words, “Being by the right hand of God exalted, having
received of the Father the promise of the Spirit ;” 122 or “Wait for the promise
of the Father, which ye have heard, ” 123 or “The Spirit driveth him into the
wilderness ;” 124 or the words of Christ himself, “Take no thought what ye shall
say, for it is the Spirit of my Father that speaketh in you, ” 125 or “If I cast out
devils by the Spirit of God ," 125 or “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy
Spirit hath never forgiveness ,” 127 and so on — or “Father, into thy hands I
shall commend my Spirit ,” 125 or “The child grew and waxed strong in the
Spirit, ” 129 or Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, returned from Jordan ”, 130 or
“Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit ,” 131 or “That which is born of the
Spirit is spirit ;” 132 [any of this] is Like saying, “That which was made, in him
was life ,” 133 or “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, the Spirit of truth .” 134 ‘Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to

113 1 Tim 4:1.

114 Hag 2:1.

115 Hag 2:5.

116 Cf. Rev 3:20; John 14:23.

117 Isa 11:2.

118 Luke 4:18.

119 Acts 10:38.

120 Isa 48:16.

121 Isa 6:3.

122 Acts 2:33.

123 Acts 1:4.

124 Mark 1:12.

125 Matt 13:11.

126 Matt 12:28.

127 Mark 3:29.

128 Luke 23:46.

129 Luke 1:80.

130 Luke 4:1.

131 Luke 4:14.

132 John 3:6.

133 John 1:3-4.

134 John 14:16-17.

PNEUMATOMACHI

493

the Holy Spirit ?" 135 as Peter said to Ananias, and further on, “Thou hast not
Lied unto men, but unto God. ” 136 In other words the Holy Spirit, to whom they
Lied by keeping part of the price of their Land, is God of God, and is God, or
“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit ” 137 — (9) I cannot give a
better argument than this.

The Son is God: the scripture says, “Of whom, as concerning the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all God ;” 133 “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou
shalt be saved, ” 139 “He spake unto them the word of the Lord, ” and “When
he had brought them into his house he set meat before them, and rejoiced,
believing in God with all his house” 140 — or, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ,’’ 141 or “The grace of
our God and Savior hath appeared unto all men, teaching us ,’’ 142 or “that
they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things, ” 143 or “looking
for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our
Savior Jesus Christ. ” 144

6,10 But the service of the Spirit, and the service of the Word, is the same.
[To say], “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God ,” 145 is similar
to saying, “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he
counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry .” 146

7,1 As we have shown, the Son and the Holy Spirit work in cooperation
with the Father: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and
all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth ." 147 The Holy Spirit is an object
of worship: “They thatworship God mustworship him in Spirit and in truth. ” 14S
(2) But if the Spirit cooperates in the making of these things, a creature can-
not make a creature; and the Godhead does not become a creature and is
not known as God in some limited or circumscribed sense. For the Godhead

135 Acts 5:3.

136 Acts 5:4.

137 1 Tim 3:16.

138 Rom 9:5.

139 Acts 16:31.

140 Acts 16:32; 34.

141 John 1:1.

142 Cf. Tit 2:11-12.

143 Tit 2:10.

144 Tit 2:13.

145 Acts 20:28.

146 1 Tim 1:12.

147 Ps 32:6.

148 John 4:24.

494

PNEUMATOMACHI

is boundless, infinite and incomprehensible, and surpasses all that God has
made. (3) Nor can a creature be an object of worship: “They worshiped the
creature rather than the creator, and were made fools. ” 149 How can it not
be foolish to make a god of a creature and break the first commandment,
which says, “Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord, ” 150 “There shall no
strange god be in thee. ” 151

7,4 However, in the sacred scriptures there are various names for the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father’s names are, “Father Almighty,”
“Father of all, ” "Father of Christ. ” The Son 's are, “Word, ” “Christ, ” “true Light;”
and the Holy Spirit’s are, “Paraclete, ” “Spirit of truth, " “Spirit of God, ” “Spirit
of Christ.” (5) Further, our God and Father is regarded as light — indeed, as
brighter than light, power, wisdom. But if our God and Father is light, the
Son is light of light and thus “dwelleth in light which no man can approach
unto. ” 152 ( 6 ) But God is all power, and thus < the Son > is “Lord of powers. ” 153
God is all wisdom, and the Son is therefore wisdom of wisdom, “in whom are
hid all the treasures of wisdom. ” 154 God is all Ife, and the Son is thus life of
lfe,for “I am the truth and the life .” 155

7,7 But the Holy Spirit is of both, as spirit of spirit. For “God is spirit ,” 155
but God’s Spirit 157 is the giver of spiritual gifts, utterly true, enlightener,
Paraclete, conveyor of the Father’s counsels. (8) For as the Son is “angel of a
great counsel ,” 155 so is the Holy Spirit. Scripture says, “Now we have received
the Spirit of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us
of God. Which things also we speak, not with the persuasion of words of wis-
dom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of God, comparing spiritual things
with spiritual. ” 159

8,1 But someone will say, “Then are we talking about two Sons? Why
“OvAy-begotten?” “Nay, but who art thou that reckonest contrary to God ?” 150
If God calls the One who is of him, the Son, and the One who is of Both, the
Holy Spirit — things which are understood by the saints alone, by faith, which

149 Rom 1:25; cf. v. 22.

150 Deut 6:4.

151 Ps 80:10.

152 1 Tim 6:16.

153 Ps 58:6.

154 Col 2:3.

155 John 14:6.

156 John 4:24.

157 Holl 7TEvO(ia 5 s 0 eou, MSS; 0 eotv]i;.

158 Isa 9:5.

159 1 Cor 2:12-13 and 12:4.

160 Cf. Rom 9:20.

PNEUMATOMACHI

495

are Light, which give Light, which have the power to enlighten, and create a
harmony of Light with the Father himself (2 ) — [if this is so], Sir, hear with
faith that the Father is the Father of a true Son and is all light, and that
< the > Son is the < Son > of a true Father and is light of light, [and] not
merely in name, as art facts or created things are. And the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of truth, a third light, from the Father and the Son.

8,3 But all the other [“sons" and “spirits"] are such by adoption or in
name, and are not [sons or spirits] like these, in actuality, power, Light or
meaning or, as one might say, “I have begotten sons and raised them up ,” 161
“I have said, Ye are gods and ye are all children of the Most High ," 162 “Who
hath begotten drops of dew ," 163 “of whom [is] the whole family in heaven
and earth ,” 164 or “I that establish thunder and create spirit .” 166 (4) For the
true Father has not begun to be a father [at some particular time], like the
other fathers or patriarchs; nor does he ever cease to be a father. For if he
begins to be a father he was at one time the son of another father, before
being the Father of an Only -begotten himself. But fathers are presumed to
be children in the likeness of their fathers, and the finding of the true father
of this ancient history is an endless process.

8.5 Nor is the true Son new at being a son, like the others, who are chil-
dren by adoption. For if he is new at being a son, there was a time when the
Father was not the Father of an Only-begotten.

8.6 And the Spirit of truth is not created or made, like the other spirits,
or called “the angel of the great counsel ” 166 in the same sense as the other
“angels.” (7) Some things have a beginning and an end, but others have rule,
(i.e., apyji playing on “beginning”) and might of an inconceivable kind. Some
create all things for endless ages, in cooperation with the Father; others are
created by these, as they will. Some worship the creators; others are fit for
worship by all creatures. Some heal created things; others receive healing
from the former. (8) Some are judged in accordance with their deserts; oth-
ers have the power of righteous judgment. And some things are < in > time;
others are not in time. Some illumine all; others are illumined by them. Some
summon babes to the height; others are summoned by Him who is Mature.
Some grant favors to all; others receive favors. And in a word, some hymn

161 Isa 1:2.

162 Ps 81:6.

163 Job 38:28.

164 Eph 3:15.

165 Am 4:13.

166 Isa 9:5.

496

PNEUMATOMACHI

the Holiness in the heavens of heavens and the other invisible realms; others
are hymned, and bestow their gifts on the worthy.

9,1 But the scripture speaks of a great many spirits. [It says ], “who maketh
his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire ,” 161 and “Praise the Lord,
all ye spirits .” 168 (2) The gift of “discernment of spirits ” 168 is given to the
worthy. Some spirits are heavenly and “rejoice in the truth ”; 110 some are of
the earth and apt at deceit and error. Some are subterrestrial, children of the
abyss and darkness. For the Gospel says, “They besought him that he would
not send them away to go out into the abyss ,” 111 and he accordingly gave
the spirits this command. And he cast out spirits with a word and “suffered
them not to speak .” 112

g,3 We are told of “a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning ." 118 We
are also told of a spirit of the world — “We have not received the spirit of
the world, ” 114 says scripture — and a spirit of man: ‘What man knoweth the
things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him ?” 115 [We are told of]
“a spirit that passeth away and cometh not again ,’’ 116 “for the spirit hath
passed through him and he shall not be ,” 111 and “Thou shall take away their
spirits and they shall perish. ” 178

9.4 And “Spirits of prophets are subject to prophets ,” 119 and “Behold, a
lying spirit stood before the Lord, and he said unto him, Wherewith shalt
thou deceive Ahab? And he said, I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of the
prophets. ” 180

9.5 We are told of a “spirit of compunction, ” 181 a “spirit of fear, ” 182 a “spirit
of divination ,” 188 a “spirit of fornication ,” 184 a “spirit of tempest ,” 185 a “talk-

167 Ps 103:4.

168 cf. Ps 150:6.

169 1 Cor 12:10

170 Cf. 1 Cor 13:6.

171 Luke 8:31; cf. Mark 5:10.

172 Luke 4:41.

173 Isa 4:4.

174 1 Cor 2:12.

175 1 Cor 2:11.

176 Ps 77:39.

177 Ps 102:16.

178 Ps 103:24.

179 1 Cor 14:32.

180 3 Kms 22:21-22.

181 Isa 29:10 (Rom 11:8).

182 2 Tim 1:7.

183 Acts 16:16.

184 Hos 4:12.

185 Ps 10:6.

PNEUMATOMACHI

497

alive spirit ," 186 a “spirit of infirmity ,’’ 187 an “unclean spirit ,” 188 a “deaf and
dumb spirit, ” 189 a “spirit with, an impediment in its speech, ” 190 a “spirit exceed-
ing fierce, which is called Legion, ” 191 and the "spiritual forces of wickedness. ” 192
There is no end to what is said about spirits by the wise.

9,6 But just as most “sons" are sons by adoption or in name but not actual
sons, since they have beginnings and ends and < were conceived > in sin, so
most spirits are spirits by adoption or in name — even though they are sinful.
Only the Holy Spirit, however, is called the “Spirit of truth, “ “Spirit of God, ”
“Spirit of Christ” and “Spirit of grace" by the Father and the Son. ( 7 ) For he
graciously gives good to each in various ways — “to one a spirit of wisdom,
to another a spirit of knowledge, to another a spirit of might, to another
a spirit of healings, to another a spirit of prophecy, to another a spirit of
discernment, to another a spirit of tongues, to another a spirit of interpreta-
tions, ” 193 and as the scripture says, “One and the selfsame Spirit” [grants] the
rest of the gracious gifts, “dividing to every man severally as he will .” 194 ( 8 )
For as David says, “Thy good Spirit, 0 God, will guide me, ” 195 or “The Spirit
doth breathe where he will" — with words like these he has shown us the Holy
Spirit’s reality — “and thou hearest his voice, but canst not tell whence he
cometh or whither he goeth .” 196 And the words, “except ye be born of water
and the Spirit ” 197 are similar to Paul’s, “In Christ Jesus I begot you .” 198

9,9 Of the Holy Spirit, the Lord said, “When the Comforter is come, whom
I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me, ” 199 and “I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he shall guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things

186 Job 8:2.

187 Luke 13:11.

188 Mark 1:23 et al.

189 Mark 9:25.

190 Cf. Mark 7:32.

191 Matt 8:28; Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30.

192 Eph 6:12.

193 Cf. 1 Cor 12:8-10.

194 1 Cor 12:11.

195 Ps 142:10.

196 John 3:8.

197 John 3:5.

198 1 Cor 4:15.

199 John 15:26.

498

PNEUMATOMACHI

to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it
unto you. ” 200

10,1 Now if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and, as the Lord says, is
to receive “of mine,” (2) I will venture to say that, just as “No man knoweth
the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father, ” 201 so no one knows the
Spirit except the Son from whom he receives and the Father from whom he
proceeds. And no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit
who truly glorifies them, who teaches all things, who testifies of the Son, is
from the Father, is of the Son, is the only guide to truth, the expounder of holy
laws, instructor in the spiritual law, preceptor of the prophets, teacher of the
apostles, enlightener with the doctrines of the Gospels, elector of the saints,
true light of true light.

10,3 The Son is a real Son, a true Son, a legitimate Son, the unique Son
of a unique Father. With him also is the Spirit — < not a Son >, but termed,
“Spirit. ” (4) This is the God who is glorified in the church: Father forever,
Son forever, Holy Spirit forever; Sublime < of> Sublime, and the Most High;
spiritual, of glory unbounded; the One to whom all that is created and
made — in a word, the universe with its measurements and each thing that
is contained — is inferior.

10,5 The Godhead is chiefly declared to be a unity in the Law of Moses,
but is vehemently proclaimed a duality in the prophets, and is revealed as
a Trinity in the Gospels, for over the times and generations it accords more
closely with the righteous in knowledge and faith. And this knowledge is
immortality, and adoption is by faith in it. (6) But as though it were erecting
the temple’s outer wall in the Law of Moses, it gives the ordinances of the
flesh first of all. It expounds the ordinances of the soul second, as though it
were putting the sacred objects in place in the remaining prophets. But third
it gives the ordinances of the spirit, as though, in the Gospels, arranging the
mercy seat and Holy of Holies for its dwelling, but as its holy tabernacle a
holy people < who * > have none but the righteous as their companions.

10,7 In this people there dwells one infinite Godhead, one imperishable
Godhead, one incomprehensible Godhead, unfathomable, inexpressible,
invisible. It alone knows itself; it reveals itself to whom it will It raises up its
witnesses, calls, predestines and glorifies them, lifts them up from hades, hal-
lows them. (8) For its own glory and faith it makes these three one: things in
heaven, on earth, and under the earth; spirit, soul and flesh; faith, hope and

200 John 16:12-14.

201 Matt 11:27.

PNEUMATOMACHI

499

charity; past, present and future; the ages, the eternal ages, and the ages of
ages; Sabbaths of Sabbaths; the circumcision of the flesh, the circumcision of
the heart, and “the circumcision of Christ by the putting off of the body of the
sins .’’ 202 (9) In a word, it purifies all things for itself, things visible and invis-
ible, thrones, dominions, principalities authorities, powers. But in all is the
same holy voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy," from glory to glory, < to glorify >
the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, to whom
be glory and might unto the ages of ages. Amen. And he who so believes will
say “So be it! So be it. ”

The End of the Material < from > the Ancoratus

u,i And these are the things which I have already written, with my
extremely limited ability, in explanation of the faith in the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit, and have cited in the preceding paragraphs. But as a
testimony to my own salvation I shall continue with the godly citation of
texts, and the godly discussion, based on right reason, of the Godhead.

11,2 [It is plain] that the Only-begotten has been shown by many testi-
monies in the previous discussion to act in concert with the Father, and
to do the same things in all respects and grant the same graces, since he is
“of the Father,” and is not different from the Father’s power and Godhead,
but is co-essential with the Father. And not only the Son — the Holy Spirit
has been shown to act in concert with the Son and the Father, to do the
same things, and to give and grant the same graces as he will, since he too
is truly “of God,” and not different from the Father and the Son, but co-
essential with the Father and the Son. This is plain to everyone, and has
been and will be entirely proven by such a large number of texts.

However, because of the Holy Spirit’s opponents and enemies I shall
present the godly conclusions from right reason, and the arguments from
texts in the same sacred scripture, that concern only the Holy Spirit, and
present them in addition to the other texts, in accordance with the true
godly doctrine of the Holy Spirit. (4) For as is the truth, the Holy Spirit too
is unique, is worshiped by all, is beloved by all things created and made,
and is not to be equated with anything — no angel, no spirit — but is one
of a kind. (5) For there are indeed many spirits, but since the Holy Spirit
is eternally of the Father, and is not engendered by other beings, which
were made from nothing, this Spirit is high above all spirits. As there is
one God, and one only-begotten Son of God, so there is < one > Holy Spirit
of God, but of God and in God.

202 Col 2:11.

5oo

PNEUMATOMACHI

11,6 But the only-begotten Son is incomprehensible, and the Spirit is
incomprehensible; however, he is of God, and is not different from the
Father and the Son. He is not an identity with the Father and the Son;
there is an eternal Trinity of the same essence, not an essence other than
the Godhead and not a Godhead other than the essence, but the same
Godhead. And of the same Godhead are the Son and the Holy Spirit.
(7) And the Spirit is a holy spirit, but the Son is a son. The Spirit pro-
ceeds from the Father and receives of the Son, “searcheth the deep things
of God,” 203 “sheweth” 204 the things of the Son to the world, and hallows
the saints through the Trinity. He is third in the enumeration [of the
Trinity] — the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for scrip-
ture says, “Go baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit.” 205 He is the confirmation of the grace (i.e., of baptism),
the seal of the Trinity, not apart from the numeration, not different from
its naming, and not other than its gift 206 — but there is one God, one faith,
one Lord, one gift, one church, one baptism.

12,1 For, as I have often said, the Trinity is forever a Trinity, and never
receives an addition. It is sweet to confess this faith, and one never tires
of saying it; for the prophet says, “Sweet are thy words unto my throat.” 207
(2) And if the words are sweet, how much sweeter is the holy name,
“Trinity,” the fount of all sweetness? This, then, is the enumeration of the
Trinity: “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (3) The Trinity is not an identity and
cannot be separated from its oneness, and yet the Father is perfect in the
subsistence of perfection, the Son is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect —
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (4) Conversely, the Holy Spirit is enumerated
among the spiritual gifts: “For there are diversities of gifts, but the same
Spirit, and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord,
and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God that worketh
all in all.” 208

203 1 Cor 2:10.

204 Cf. John 16:15.

205 Matt 28:19.

206 The foregoing expressions concern the rite of baptism, in which the candidate is
baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This naming
of the Trinity is its “enumeration,” and the Holy Spirit’s name comes last as “confirmation”
or “seal.”

207 Ps 118:103.

208 1 Cor 12:4-6.

PNEUMATOMACHI

501

12.5 And since such is the case, let us make sure not to be deprived of
the truth, but let us confess the truth instead — not to plead for God, but
to think of him piously, lest we perish. To say or think that there is any
created thing in the Trinity, or anything added to it, is unacceptable; the
Trinity was always the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

12.6 The Son is neither the Father’s kinsman nor identical with him,
and the Spirit is neither identical with nor the kinsman of the Father and
the Son. (7) The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from
the Father, though in some ineffable way the Trinity exists in an identity
of its glory and is incomprehensibly a Son, and likewise a Holy Spirit, with
a Father; nor does the Trinity ever cease from the same eternity. (8) The
Father, then, is forever ingenerate, uncreated and incomprehensible. The
Son is begotten, but uncreated and incomprehensible. The Holy Spirit is
eternally — not generate, not created, not a kinsman, not an ancestor, not
an offspring, but a Holy Spirit of the same essence as the Father and the
Son, “For God is spirit.” 209

13,1 In every scripture there are testimonies to our salvation, in all its
sureness. I shall cite as few as I can of the many [there are], in order, even
at this stage, not to leave the exposition without a witness to the Holy
Spirit. (2) For example, to declare to all the faithful, for their salvation, the
genuineness of his Holy Spirit, the Father says of the Son’s human nature,
“I shall put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim judgment to the
gentiles.” 210 (3) Then, by his own testimony, the Only-begotten adds, The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me” 211 — a plain
acknowledgment, by Christ’s testimony, that his human nature is certi-
fied and proclaimed to the faithful by the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is not
different from God.

13,4 But again, the Lord says of the Spirit, “It is the Spirit of my Father
that speaketh in you.” 212 And again, since the Spirit is not different from
the Father’s divinity, “He breathed in the faces of the disciples and said,
Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” 213 And again, to show his equality and co-
essentiality, and his Father’s, with the Holy Spirit, he said, “If ye love me,
keep my commandments. And I shall pray the Father, and he will give you

209 John 4:24.

210 Isa 42:1.

211 Luke 4:18.

212 Matt 10:20.

213 John 20:22.

502

PNEUMATOMACHI

another advocate” 214 — since the Lord himself is an advocate, and the Holy
Spirit likewise is his fellow advocate.

r3,5 And to show that the Spirit is not a servant, but is of the same
Godhead [as the Son], the apostles gave intimation of his authority by say-
ing, “And the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them,” 215 and so on. (6) But Paul says plainly of
him, “The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty,” 216 and, “Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of the Lord dwell-
eth in you.” 217 (7) Now if we are called God’s temple because of the Holy
Spirit’s indwelling, who would dare to reject the Spirit and separate him
from the essence of God — when the apostle plainly says that we become
God’s temples because of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the worthy? And
how can the Spirit who “searcheth the deep things of God” 218 be different
from God?

And don’t tell me, (8) “He searches, but he doesn’t know yet,” as some
dare to blaspheme him to their own destruction. [If this were so] they
should say < the > same of the Father, for even of him scripture says, “He
searcheth the treasuries of the belly.” 219 (9) And if you intend to take an
impious view [of the Spirit] because knowledge does not follow search-
ing in the Spirit’s case, you must speak impiously of the Father too, and
be compelled to express the same wrong notion. No “knowing” is added
to “The Father searcheth the treasuries of the belly” — there would be no
need to say it — since God’s foreknowledge is made plainly evident, < and >
fully expressed, by the word, “search.” So please < understand > the one
knowledge and foreknowledge in the Spirit, the Son and the Father, since
the Holy Trinity is plainly perfect and identical.

r4,r An untold amount could be said about this, and it would be pos-
sible to cite a mass of texts from sacred scripture, and drag them out at
length and burden the readers. (2) For by speaking at length in every Sect I,
despite my weakness, have sufficiently refuted them all by the power of
God, and have shown that all sects are strangers to the truth, and that

214 John 14:15-16.

215 Acts 13:2.

216 2 Cor 3:17.

217 1 Cor 3:16.

218 1 Cor 2:10.

219 Prov 20:17.

PNEUMATOMACHI

503

each of them blasphemes and denies the truth, whether in a minor or in
a major matter.

So with these people < who > blaspheme the Lord and the Holy Spirit to
no purpose and, as the Lord has said, have no "remission” of sins “here or
in the world to come” 220 because of their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit —
and who have been trodden underfoot by the truth itself, (3) like a dread-
ful horned asp with its single horn, since the blasphemous mind is capable
of destroying the entire body. And they have been struck by the preaching
of the cross and the true confession of the Only-begotten — for, as I said,
for a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit “There shall be no forgiveness either
in this world or in the world to come” — and have been trodden on and
crushed; for they cannot prevail against the truth.

14,4 All the sects are truly “gates of hell,” but “They will not prevail
against the rock,” 221 that is, against the truth. For even though some of them
choose to say, “We too profess the creed that was issued at Nicaea; show
me from it that the Holy Spirit is counted as divine,” they will find them-
selves confounded even by this. (5) The dispute then was not about the
Holy Spirit. The councils make sure of the matter that arises at a particular
time. Since Arius was directing the insult at the Son, there was accuracy of
language about him, with additional discussion. (6) But observe from the
creed itself that there is no way in which the blasphemers of the Spirit,
the Pneumatomachi who are strangers to his gift and sanctification, can
make their point here either. (7) The creed at once confesses, and does not
deny, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty.” But “We believe” is
not left at that. The faith is in God “and in one Lord Jesus Christ.” < And >
this is not left at that. The faith is in God “and in the Holy Spirit.” (8) And
all this is not left at that. The three “We believes” make it evident that the
faith is in one glory, one unity and one co-essentiality — three Perfects but
one Godhead, one essence, one glory, one dominion. And here too their
argument has failed.

14,9 And how long am I to go on? I believe that what I have said against
them will suffice for those who love the truth. I shall therefore pass this
sect by too, beseeching God to aid me as usual in the refutation of them
all, so that, by his power, I may keep my promise and give him thanks in
every way.

220 Matt 12:32.

221 Matt 16:18.

504

AE RIANS

Against Aerius 1 55, but 75 of the Series

1,1 Again, one Aerius has likewise become a great misfortune for the
world, a person with cracked brains and inflated pride. For from first to
last, malice has been the cause of every sect that has arisen — [malice],
or a spirit of vainglory or pride, or a lustful appetite, or envy of one’s
neighbors, or temper, or rashness. (2) In a word, blindness is of the devil,
though the devil has no power to deceive anyone who does not want him
to. Everyone is responsible for his own sinning, as the scripture says, "that
they which are approved may be made manifest.” 2

1,3 Aerius is still alive in the flesh and survives, a thoroughgoing Arian.
Because he has inquired further into Arian speculations he holds beliefs
that are no different, but are like those of Arius, And in his turn he has his
tongue sharpened and his mouth battle-ready, to attract a deluded band,
and a throng of people whose ears are itching and minds receptive. (4) For
he too has invented a monstrous fictitious doctrine with nothing to it — a
source of some amusement to the sensible, but he has still deceived and
perverted many with it.

1,5 Aerius was the fellow student of Eustathius the son of Sebastius, of
Sebaste, in the country called Pontus, or Lesser Armenia. For Eustathius
and Aerius were ascetics together. (6) When Eustathius attained the epis-
copate, however, Aerius wanted this instead, but could not get it. This
is the kind of thing that arouses jealousy. Still, Eustathius appeared to
be standing by Aerius. (7) He made him a presbyter immediately after-
wards, and entrusted him with the hospice, which in Pontus is called an
alms-house. For they make arrangements of this kind out of hospitality,
and the leaders of the churches there lodge the crippled and infirm, and
supply < their needs* > as best they can.

2,1 But since Aerius’ anger had not left him, there were more words
between them every day, the jealousy between them increased, and evil
reports and slanders of Eustathius were circulated by Aerius. But the
bishop Eustathius sent for Aerius and cajoled him, admonished, threat-
ened, rebuked, pleaded with him, and got nowhere. For the thing that had
been begun was going on, to very ill effect.

1 Epiphanius’ information about his contemporary, Aerius, may well have come from
oral sources, or been common report. However, the succession of quotations at 3,4-7,
sometimes introduced by such formulas as “Next he says,” or “after this,” suggest that
Epiphanius had a literary source as well.

2 1 Cor nag.

AERIANS

505

2,2 Aerius finally left the hospice and withdrew from the world, on the
pretext < that Eustathius was appropriating the church’s funds. From that
time on* > he scrutinized < Eustathius’ life* >, like a man out to get some-
thing on an enemy or take a shot at a foe.

(3) And in the end he slandered Eustathius to everyone, and said, “He
is no longer the sort of man < you think he is* >, but has turned to the
acquisition of wealth, and all sorts of property.” (4) All this was calumny
on Aerius’ part. Eustathius was in fact in charge of the church’s affairs,
and he could not do otherwise. And [yet] the things Aerius was saying
sounded convincing.

2,5 Since I have introduced Eustathius while speaking against Aerius,
one might suppose that I also regard Eustathius as commendable. No
few admire his life and conduct, and if his faith were only orthodox too!
(6) For he too held Arius’ position from first to last, and not even the hard-
ships of the persecutions set him straight — he was persecuted with Basil,
Eleusius and others. 3 (7) But apparently he also went on an embassy with
other bishops to the blessed Liberius of Rome, and signed the creed of the
Council of Nicaea, and its confession of orthodoxy. (8) Later, however, as
though he had regained his memory and awakened from dreams, he never
ceased to look to his original principles, the Arian heresy. But this is about
Aerius — we must get back to him.

3,1 For the reasons we have given, Aerius originally preened himself on
renunciation of the world; but when he left the hospice he took a large
body of men and women with him. (2) With his < fellowship > he was
driven from the churches, and from cultivated lands and villages, and the
other towns. He often lived out in the snow with his numerous band of
followers, and lodged in the open air and caves, and took refuge in the
woods. (3) But his teaching was more insane than is humanly possible,
and he says, “What is a bishop compared with a presbyter? The one is
no different from the other. There is one order,” he said, “and one honor
and one rank. A bishop lays on hands,” he said, “but so does a presbyter.
The bishop administers baptism, and the presbyter does too. The bishop
performs the eucharistic liturgy, the presbyter likewise. A bishop occu-
pies the throne, and the presbyter also occupies one.” With this he misled
many, < who > regarded him as their leader.

3 Eustathius was deprived of his see at the Synod of Constantinople in 360.

506

AE RIANS

(4) Next he says, “What is the Passover you celebrate? You are giving
your allegiance to Jewish fables again. We have no business celebrating
the Passover,” he says; “Christ was sacrificed for our Passover.” 4

3.5 Then, after this: “Why do you mention the names of the dead after
their deaths (i.e., in the liturgy)? < If > the living prays or has given alms,
how will this benefit the dead? If the prayer of the people here has ben-
efited the people there, no one should practice piety or perform good
works! He should get some friends any way he wants, either by bribery or
by asking friends on his death bed, and they should pray that he may not
suffer in the next life, or be held to account for his heinous sins.

3.6 “And there can be no set time for fasting,” he says. ‘These are Jew-
ish customs, and ‘under a yoke of bondage. 5 ‘The Law is not made for the
righteous, but for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers 6 and the
rest. If I choose to fast at all, I shall fast of my own accord, on the day of
my choice, because of my liberty.” (7) And they therefore make a point of
fasting on Sunday instead [of the usual days], and eating on Wednesdays
and Fridays. They often fast on Wednesday also, but by their own choice,
they say, not by an ordinance.

3.8 And during the days of Passover, while we sleep on the ground,
purify ourselves, endure hardships, eat dry bread, pray, watch and fast,
performing all the saving < mortifications* > of the holy Passovers, they
buy meat and wine early in the morning, stuff their veins, < and > burst
out laughing in mockery of those who keep this holy service of the week
of the Passover.

3.9 Indeed, even though they have had the custom of renunciation
they have not practiced it. < There is > a great deal of eating of meat and
drinking of wine — unless there are a scant few of them who choose < to
do > this by their own preference. But most of them indulge lavishly in
meat dishes and wine-drinking, as I have often remarked. These are the
teachings which Aerius has spat up into the world.

4,1 Thus he shows the world his intent, unbelief, and his mad teach-
ings, again mischievously brought to the world by him. (2) But I shall go
on to the arguments against him, make a few points, and then pass him
by. < From > his saying that a bishop and a presbyter are the same, it is
plain to people with sense that he is simply foolish. How can this be? The

4 1 Cor 5:7.

5 1 Tim 6a.

6 1 Tim 1:9.

AERIANS

507

one is an order that generates fathers. For the episcopate produces fathers
for the church. But the presbyterate, which cannot produce fathers, pro-
duces children through the laver of regeneration, but surely not fathers or
teachers. (3) And since he is not ordained for the purpose of ordaining,
how could a presbyter consecrate a bishop, or say that he is equal to a
bishop? Aerius’ quarrel and his jealousy have deceived him.

4,4 For his own and his hearers’ deception he alleges that the apos-
tle writes to “presbyters and deacons” 7 and not to bishops, and tells the
bishop, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which thou didst receive at
the hands of the presbytery;” 8 and again, elsewhere he writes “to bishops
and deacons” 9 so that, as Aerius says, bishops and presbyters are the same.
(5) And he, as not knowing the true order of events, and not having read
the most searching investigations, does not realize that the holy apostle
wrote about the problems which arose when the Gospel was new. Where
bishops were already consecrated he wrote to bishops and deacons, for
the apostles could not establish everything at once. (6) There was a need
for presbyters and deacons, for the business of the church can be done by
these two. But where there was no one worthy of the episcopate, the place
remained without a bishop. Where there was a need for one, however, and
there were persons worthy of the episcopate, bishops were consecrated.

4,7 But where the congregation was not large they had no presbyters
for ordination, and made do solely with the local bishop. However, there
can be no bishop without a deacon. And the holy apostle saw to it that
the bishop had deacons to assist him; in this way the church got its busi-
ness done. (8) This is what local churches were like at that time. All did
not get each thing at the start, but what was needed was arranged for as
time went on.

5,1 For according to the Old Testament, Moses was sent straight to
Egypt by God with nothing but a staff. < But > on his entry into Egypt he
was also given his brother Aaron to help him. (2) Then, after his brother
believed him, the council of elders, and the leaders of the people at that
time, were gathered for him. And after this, when his work was estab-
lished and his following was gathered, he passed through the sea.

5,3 And they were not yet living by the Law, until < the > Lord called
him into the mount. But he gave him the tablets, and told him how to

7 I.e., all communications apparently addressed to bishops are addressed to presbyters.

8 1 Tim 4:14.

9 Phil 1:1.

508

AE RIANS

make a tabernacle, and appoint officials, captains of tens, fifties, hundreds
and thousands. (4) And do you see how things were expanded? “See,” says
God, “that thou make all things according to the pattern that was shown
thee in Mount Sinai.” 10

5,5 And you see how a seven-branched lampstand was added to the
legislation, and long robes, priestly vestments, bells and woolen cloaks,
brooches and turbans, miters and jewelry made from various stones; ladles,
censers, lavers, altars, bowls, “masmaroth,” which are strainers, “midikoth,”
which means ladles, “machonoth,” which are bases — and everything the
Law speaks of, cherubim and the rest, the ark of the covenant, carrying
poles and rings; the tabernacle, and hides and skins dyed scarlet; curtain
rings and the rest; doorkeepers, wooden trumpets and curved trumpets,
trumpets made of gold, silver, bronze < and > horn — and everything else
the Law said, different kinds of sacrifices, teachings. (6) Because this was
not in force from the beginning, were the things not given < permanent
status > after they had been ordained? (7) Thus the things the apostle
wrote applied until the church expanded, achieved its full growth, and
< filled > the world with the knowledge < which > has been most rightly
established by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And Aerius’ argument
has failed.

5,8 And < by giving indication >, through the holy apostle, of who a
bishop is and who a presbyter is, the word of God teaches that they can-
not be the same. Paul says to Timothy, who is a bishop, “Rebuke not a
presbyter, but entreat him as a father.” 11 (g) What was the point of a bish-
op’s not rebuking a presbyter, if he did not have the authority over the
presbyter? Once more, it says, “Receive not hastily an accusation against
a presbyter, save by two or three witnesses.” 12 (10) And he never told any
presbyter, “Receive not an accusation against a bishop,” or wrote to any
presbyter not to rebuke a bishop. And you see that the fall of anyone the
devil shakes loose is no light one.

6,1 But let us see and investigate his other teachings. And let us speak
first of the Passover, as scripture says, “Christ is sacrificed for our Passover.” 13
Let’s see whether the man who said that, didn’t keep the Passover himself.
Scripture says, “He hasted to keep the Feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem.” 14

10 Exod 25:40.

11 1 Tim 5:1.

12 1 Tim 5:19.

13 1 Cor 5:7.

14 Acts 20:16.

AERIANS

509

But what Pentecost was Paul keeping if he hadn’t kept the Passover?
(2) And who, anywhere in the world, does not agree that Wednesdays and
Fridays are designated as fasts in the church? If, indeed, I need to speak
of the Ordinance of the Apostles, they plainly decreed there that Wednes-
days and Fridays be fasts at all times except Pentecost, 15 and directed that
nothing at all be eaten on the six days of the Passover except bread, salt
and water; 16 and which day to keep, and that we break our fast on the
night before the Lord’s Day. (3) But who has better knowledge of these
things? The deluded man who has just arrived and is still alive today, or
those who were witnesses before us, who have had the tradition in the
church before us and received it in this form from their fathers — and their
fathers in their turn, who learned it from those before them, just as the
church possesses the true faith and the traditions to this day because she
has received them from her fathers? And again, so much for his idea of
the Passover!

6,4 But then, if the same apostles did not speak of this very subject of
Wednesdays and Fridays in the Ordinance, I could prove it in all sorts of
other ways. But they wrote about this in specific terms, the church has
received it, and there was a world-wide agreement before Aerius and
his Aerians. (5) Perhaps Aerius was very aptly named for this reason; he
has received an unclean spit of the air, the airish “spirit of wickedness” 17
which, in him, laid siege to the church.

7,1 And then, as to naming the dead, what could be more helpful?
What could be more opportune or wonderful than that the living believe
that the departed are alive and have not ceased to be but exist, and live
with the Lord — (2) and that the most sacred doctrine should declare that 18
there is hope for those who pray for their brethren as though they were
off on a journey?

7,3 And even though the prayer we offer for them cannot root out all
their faults — [how could it], since we often slip in this world, inadver-
tently and deliberately — it is still useful as an indication of something
more perfect. (4) For we commemorate both righteous and sinners.
Though we pray for sinners, for God’s mercy, 19 and for the righteous, the

15 This is not in the Didascalia, but Const. Ap. 5.20.14 directs that festival be kept on
Pentecost and the week following.

16 Didascalia 21 (S-S p. 216; A-F p. 111).

17 Eph 6:12.

18 I.e., rather than praying to them.

19 For example, in the Liturgy of St. James, Brightman, Liturgies Eastern, p. 57.

5io

AE RIANS

fathers, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs and con-
fessors, for bishops and anchorites and the whole band [of saints], 20 (5)
we worship our Lord Jesus Christ to distinguish him from the whole of
humanity by our honor of him, remembering that the Lord is not on a
level with any man — even though each man has < performed > a million
righteous deeds and more.

7.6 For how could this be? The one is God; the other, man. The one
is in heaven and the other, because of his earthly remains, is on earth —
except for those who have risen and entered the bridal chamber as the
holy Gospel says, “And many bodies of the saints arose and went in with
him into the holy city.” 21

7.7 But which holy city does he mean? [Both], for the words apply to
both, the city here and the city on high. For they plainly entered the earthly
Jerusalem with him first. But before the Savior’s ascent into heaven, no
one had ascended until the time at which they ascended with him, "For
no man hath ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven,
the Son of Man.” 22 Since I am on the subject, I have given the two proof-
texts for this. But if anyone asks, “Did they go into Jerusalem?” he should
learn that on that day, “When the doors were shut, Jesus came to where
the disciples were gathered, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” 23

8,1 But I shall take up the thread of this topic once more. The church is
bound to keep this custom because she has received a tradition from the
fathers. (2) And who can violate a mother’s precept or a father’s law? As
the words of Solomon < tell us >, “Hear, my son, the words of thy father,
and reject not the precepts of thy mother,” 24 showing that the Father —
God, that is — and the Only-begotten and the Holy Spirit taught both in
writing and in unwritten form. But our mother the church had precepts
which she kept inviolate, and which cannot be broken. (3) Now since
these precepts have been ordained in the church, and are suitable, and
all of them marvelous, this fraud is confounded in his turn.

8,4 But let us pass him by too, as though we had squashed a dung or
blister-beetle, or the bug we call a buprestis, < and >, on the foundation

20 See Const. Apost. 8.12.43, and the Liturgies of Chryostom and. St. Basil, Brightman,
Liturgies Eastern, pp. 230-232.

21 Matt 27:52-53.

22 John 3:13.

23 John 20:19.

24 Prov 1:8.

ANOMOEANS

511

of the church and with God’s power, go on once more to the rest, calling
on God for aid.

Against Anomoeans. 1 56, but 76 of the Series

1,1 Again, some have been called Anomoeans. These are of recent origin.
Their founder was a deacon named Aetius, who was advanced because
of his foolishness by George of Alexandria. 2 George was the bishop of the
Arians and Melitians at once and, as I have already indicated, was paraded
through the city on a camel during the reign of Julian. 3 (2) And first he
was surrounded by the Greeks and badly mistreated, and was paraded,
as I said, and beaten with cudgels, but was then dragged through almost
the whole town, and this is how he died. After his death he was burned,
reduced to ashes together with the bones of many domestic and wild ani-
mals, and then scattered to the four winds by the pagans, and this was
the last of him. 4

1,3 Should one say of a man who died like that, “Well, he became a mar-
tyr by undergoing these sufferings at the hands of the pagans?” Indeed, if
his ordeal had been for the truth’s sake, and the pagans had done this to
him from envy and because of his confession of Christ, he would truly
have ranked as a martyr, and no minor one. (4) The confession of Christ,
however, was not the reason for his death. It was the great violence he
had inflicted on the city and people during his so-called episcopate, if you
please, sometimes by robbing people of their patrimony, < sometimes by
levying unjust taxes* >.

1,5 And not to inform on the man — for he did a number of things to
the Alexandrians. For example, he expropriated the entire nitre tax; and
he thought of a way of controlling the papyrus and reed marshes and the
salt marshes, and getting them for himself. (6) He overlooked no shameful
way of making money by many methods, even small things. For instance,
he thought of limiting the number of biers 5 for the bodies of the dying,

1 Reproduced in full in this Sect is the Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomoean, On the
Ingenerate God and the Generate, at 11-12. 54,23-31 seem to reflect personal debate between
Epiphanius and some Anomoeans.

2 Cf. Theodore bar Khoni in Pognon pp. 196-198. However, according to Philost. 3.17
and Soc. 2.35.5, Aetius was ordained deacon in Antioch by Leontius.

3 Hist. Aceph. 85; Soc. 3.2.10.

4 Soz. 5.7.3; Philost. 7.2.

5 Amidon: “instituting a certain number of litter bearers for the bodies of the
deceased.”

512

ANOMOEANS

and without his appointed officials no dead man’s body, especially not
strangers’ bodies, could be carried out for burial. This was not for hospital-
ity’s sake, but, as I said, to support himself. (7) For if anyone buried a body
on his own, he ran a risk. In this way George made a profit on every corpse
that was buried. And I pass over the other things the man got for himself
through luxuries < and in other dreadful ways* >, and by cruelty.

1,8 Thus because of all this the Alexandrians who cherished anger
against him, the pagans most of all, inflicted this end on him. But my
reason for saying how the Alexandrians destroyed him like this as soon
as they heard of Constantius’ death, is simply because of Aetius, whom
George made a deacon.

2,1 They say that even by worldly standards Aetius was uneducated
until his manhood. 6 (2) But he stooped to attending the lectures of an
Aristotelian philosopher and sophist at Alexandria 7 and learning their dia-
lectic, if you please, for no other purpose than to give a figurative repre-
sentation of the divine Word. < But > he devoted full time to the project,
getting up at dawn and keeping at it till evening, I mean at discussing
and defining God via a sort of geometry and in figures of speech, and at
teaching and perfecting his doctrine. (3) As an Arian of the deepest dye
and a holder of Arius’ insane doctrine, he became the more destructive
by devoting his time to these things, and sharpening his tongue each day
against the Son of God and the Tfoly Spirit.

2,4 Tie was accused by certain persons, however, and denounced to
Constantius, and was banished to the Taurus. 8 Tfere he amplified and dis-
closed all of his wicked doctrine by teaching it openly, < for > after hard-
ening himself by further shamelessness, he disgorged his heresy in full. (5)
For he dared to say that the Son is unlike the Father, and not the same as
the Father in Godhead.

And not that we rely on the likeness. Beyond the likeness, we know
that the Son is the same as the Father, and the Father’s equal, in Godhead,
and not different at all. (6) Many things can be likened to God, but they
are not the same as he, < or > his equals, in Godhead. For example, man
is in God’s image and likeness, but is not the same as God in the sense of
equality. (7) And the kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed —

6 Greg. Nys. C. Eunom. 1.36-38; Philost. 3:15-17.

7 Soc. 2.35.6; Soz. 3.15.8.

8 At the Council of Sirmium in 358 Aetius was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia, Philost.
4.8. He had already been in the region of the Taurus after his banishment from Antioch,
Philost. 2.15.

ANOMOEANS

513

though < a grain > is not identical with the kingdom and has no part of
it — and like leaven, and ten virgins, and a householder in point of like-
ness, but not identical.

2,8 But as the Son is like the Father — and more than “like” him, because
he is the same as the Father and his equal — my concern is not merely to
prove his likeness, but < his > sameness and equality as God of God, Son
of the Father, and not different from < his > essence, but begotten of him.
And the same with the Holy Spirit, (g) But this fine heretic Aetius didn’t
even think he should regard the Son as worthy of likeness to the Father.
Now I agree that I myself do not really enter upon the demonstration of
the faith and the honoring of the Trinity if I rely solely on the likeness.
(10) Silver is like tin too, gold is like bronze and lead like iron, and pre-
cious stones are imitated by glass; and likeness does not show nature, but
resemblance.

3,1 But here I, as to the scripture which confesses the Son to be the
“image of the invisible God” 9 — having carefully inquired the meaning
of the sacred scripture from the divine Gift who told the Pharisees, “Ye
understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God,” 10 — I understand
this doctrine in a dual sense, and explain it by taking the answer to the
expression’s meaning from a man. (2) We speak of a man’s image, and
< there is one image that is like him and > one that is not like him. One
image is made like him with paint, but the other is made by the identity of
his essence with his begetter’s. As compared with his father the newborn
son represents his kind, but in the end he is found to be his likeness < by
his > sameness and co-essentiality with him, and his resemblance to him.
(3) And we believe in the only-begotten Son of God who is the same as the
Father’s Godhead and rank, and his equal because of the true image, and
because of the likeness which admits of no variation but is indistinguish-
able, as becomes a son who is truly and co-essentially begotten of a father.
And so with the Holy Spirit, because of his procession from the Father —
even though he is not begotten, because the Son is an only-begotten.

3,4 But from his wish to offer further resistance to the confession of
the truth, Aetius tries not even to confess the Son’s likeness to the Father.
(5) For the other Arians, who took their cue from Lucian and Origen
and were companions of a sophist named Asterius * 11 who lapsed in the

9 Col 1:15.

10 Matt 22:27.

11 Cf. Ath. Syn. 18.2.

514

ANOMOEANS

persecution under Maximian, < did not disclose the whole of their heresy
about the Son* >. (6) For some < said* > that he is a < creature* >, and it
has been explained in my earlier Sects that each of them declared the
Son of God a creature, and taught that the Holy Spirit is the creature of a
creature, while some said that even though they declared him a creature,
the Son of God is like the Father. (7) But this man exposed the whole of
their deception, and of his own impiety, by < displaying > with full clarity
the harshness and arrogance of their doctrine of the Lord. And the truth
is that the strictness of the argument of this Aetius, who is also called the
“Different,” 12 can be used very justly against those who covertly introduce
the notion of the Son’s creaturehood.

3,8 For whatever is created is unlike its creator, even though it be
made like him by grace. And however one tries to decorate this with
various sorts of paint, the creator is unlike the creature — unless the rep-
resentation of him is a copy and likeness which is in imitation only of
his appearance. (9) And as his argument would have prevailed against
those Arians who regard the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as creatures,
so even later, after his excommunication by those same Arians — I mean
Eudoxius, 13 Menophilus and the others — he confounded them before the
emperor and said, (10) “As they believe, I believe — as they all do! But what
is honest in me, they hide, and what I say openly < and > acknowledge,
all these say the same, but conceal themselves.” And the emperor at that
time was not opposed to the Arian fabrication, but considered it ortho-
dox, if you please! But since he declined to confess the Son of God a crea-
ture, the emperor was annoyed and, as I have already said, sent < him >
into exile. 14

4,1 That was the origin of the sect, and from the one proposition the
man was inspired to a great production of evils, and dealt fearful wounds
to his own soul, and his converts’. (2) For he was so deluded — he and his
disciples — as to say, “I understand God perfectly in this way, and under-
stand and know him so well that I don’t know myself any better than I
know God!”

4,3 But I have heard as many things about him, the fearful way in
which the devil contrived, through him, to destroy the souls of the peo-
ple he had caught. (4) Indeed, they take no account of holiness of life,

12 avofxoio?.

13 Philost. 8.4; 9.3.

14 Soz. 4.23.4.

ANOMOEANS

515

fasts, God’s commandments, or any of God’s other ordinances for men’s
salvation, 15 but only say glibly that they < have > it all through one text.
(5) It is as though someone had lightened ship and completely jettisoned
the whole cargo, but had kept just one article of the ship’s freight, a jar
or some other thing, to get himself across the whole sea and ensure his
safety with one implement. But if he was wrong, and did not get what he
expected from the implement he kept, he would drown afterwards, and
thus lose the whole business and his life as well. (6) Thus both Aetius and
his Anomoeans cite the Lord’s words in the Gospel and repeat the expres-
sion without properly grasping the meaning, and they are wrong. (7) For
when someone falls in with them and reminds them of the command-
ments, they claim that, as the text is worded, there is nothing else that
God requires of us but simply to know him. This is what Christ meant,
they say, by saying, “Grant them, Father, to have life in themselves. And
this is life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent.” 16

4,8 Indeed, some people have told me what they distinctly heard him
say when certain persons were charged with having been caught in a
sexual offense, and were found guilty by them. He was not annoyed at
this and even made an idle jest and said that something like this is not
important; it is a physical need and the way of meeting it. (g) “When we
itch by our ear,” he said — I myself am embarrassed to repeat what < the >
filthy man told them — “we take a feather or straw,” he said, “and scratch
our ear, and get rid of the itching by our ear. This too happens naturally,”
he said, "and if someone does it he doesn’t commit a sin.”

5,1 Aetius made as many such remarks, and all his teachings are lax
and wicked, so that what he is may be seen from his works themselves.
But the Lord’s words have made this abundantly clear to us, (2) as he
said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” 17 Thus the utter
impudence of his stupidity is exposed in the second phrase and the first.
(3) [We are shown] how he opened his mouth in impudence against his
Master and was not ashamed to blaspheme his Lord, and the wise will

15 NHC Gr. Pow. 40,3-6, “Cease from the evil lusts and desires and (the teachings of)
the Anomoeans, evil heresies that have no basis,” is sometimes interpreted as a reference
to Anomoean laxity.

16 Cf. John 17:2-3.

17 Matt 7:15-16.

5i6

ANOMOEANS

test him by the fruits of his licentiousness and laxity, and not harvest his
fruit. There is no cutting of a cluster from thorns, making holiness appear
even from false doctrine.

5.4 But this is what I have heard of the events of his life. However,
there are many words which, as I said, he dared to say in consequence
of the madness of his rebellion against the Lord, and I shall give a few
examples, and make the replies to them myself which the Lord gives me
in refutation. (5) Here are the nonsense of “Different’s” faith, and these
are the “likenesses” of the words he quotes from scripture. They do not
mean what he thinks, but he takes them that way although they mean
something else.

6,1 He says at the very outset, “The Ingenerate cannot be like the Gen-
erate. Indeed, they differ in name; the one is ‘ingenerate,’ the other, ‘gen-
erate.’ ” (2) But this is perfectly silly and has simply driven the man insane.
If, to avoid losing the true view of Christ, we are to require an engenderer
of the Ingenerate, there will no longer be one Father, or < one > father of
a Father; we will need an infinite number of fathers’ fathers. And there
will [no longer] be one God, who is forever, has nothing before him, and
endures and abides forever, of whom the only-begotten true Son is begot-
ten and is, and of whom is his Holy Spirit. The gods we need will be many,
and the whole will turn out to be imposture, not truth.

6,3 But we must know that, as the fact is, there is one God, the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom is the Holy Spirit who “proceeds from
the Father and receives of the Son.” 18 (4) And this is the one Godhead —
one God, one Lord, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is not identical
with the Father and neither is the Holy Spirit, but the Father is a father,
the Son, a son, and the Holy Spirit, a holy spirit [They are] three Perfects,
one Godhead, one God, one Lord, as I have ascribed this praise to God
many times, in every Sect.

6.5 Now since God is one, and no one can suppose that there is another
God besides the one, the Father is wondrously both ingenerate and uncre-
ated; and God’s only-begotten Son, < who > is begotten of him, is not
unlike him in any way. He is the same as and perfectly equal to the Father
in rank, even though he is generate and the Father ingenerate. (6) For if
the Father has begotten any Son of himself, it is impossible that [the Son]
not be the Father’s equal, and not be like him. Whatever begets, begets
its like — and not only its like, but its equal in sameness. (7) A man begets

18 John 15:26; 16:14.

ANOMOEANS

517

a man, and God begets God. The man begets through sexual intercourse,
but God has begotten an Only-begotten alone, in an ineffable manner.
[He has not done this] by overflow, contraction or expansion; the Father,
who is spirit, has begotten the Son of himself without beginning and not
in time, altogether his like and equal. As the holy Gospel says, “The Jews
sought to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said
that he was the Son of God, making himself equal with God.” 19

6,8 How can the Son not be like the Father and entirely his equal
when he has life in himself, and says, “As the Father raiseth the dead,
even so the Son raiseth the dead,” 20 and, “He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father?” 21 (g) He cannot be different when he identifies the Father
through himself and says, “He that knoweth me, knoweth the Father,” 22
and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” meaning that he is
not different from the Father. And the Father means the Son < when he
says >, 23 "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” 24 (10) If
the Son were not like the Father, how could man be made in [their] image
and likeness? The Father did not say, “Let us make man in my image” or
in” your image,” but, “in our image.” (11) By saying, "our,” he indicated the
equality with the Father that is in the Son — and not only his likeness, but
his sameness in all ways, without any difference.

7,1 But as I have already said, how can he not be the Father’s equal and
like the Father, he who says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me?” 25
(2) For not only does he say this himself in the Gospel. Isaiah, prophesy-
ing in the Holy Spirit, knew that the Son is in the Father and is not other
than, or different from the Father, (3) as the verse which implies this says
in Hebrew: “phthoou saareim, ouiabo goi sadik, somer emmourteim, iesro
samoch, thesaar salom salom, shi bak batoou betou baadonai ada oth,
chi baia adonai sor olemeim.” 26 (4) In Aquila’s version it says, “Open the
gates, let the righteous nation enter that keepeth faith, the creation firmly
established, the keeping of peace, for in him have they trusted. Trust ye
in the Lord forever, for in the Lord is the Lord who established the ages.”
(5) In the Septuagint’s it says, “Open the gates, let < a righteous nation >

19 John 5:18.

20 John 5:21.

21 John 14:9.

22 This is not in the NT; Epiphanius’ memory is at fault.

23 Lietzmann tov ulov crvjpoilvei <Xeycov>, Holl jrpoc; tov ulov <Xeycov>.

24 Gen 1:26.

25 John 14:20.

26 This is a Greek transliteration of the Masoretic Text of Isa 26:2.

5i8

ANOMOEANS

enter that preserveth truth, and layeth claim to truth and keepeth peace.
For in thee have they trusted forever, O Lord, God the great, the eter-
nal.” (6) The reader should note that in the Septuagint “God” stands in the
place of “the Lord,” and “the great” in place of “in the Lord.”

7.7 And how much is there to say about this? I am afraid of prolong-
ing my treatment of these words to a burdensome length. Everything in
the sacred scripture is clear, to those who will approach God’s word with
pious reason, and not harbor the devil’s work within them and turn their
steps to the pits of death — as this unfortunate man and his converts have
attacked the truth more vigorously than any who have become blasphem-
ers of God and his faith before them.

7.8 that the Son cannot be unlike the Father, but have
said that I do not rely on this either. The Son is not only “like,” but equal,
the same in Godhead, the same in eternity and power. And yet we do not
say, “tautoousion,” or the expression that some use might be compared
with Sabellius. (g) We say that he is the same in Godhead, essence and
power, and in all ways the equal of the Father and his Holy Spirit And we
say “homoousion” as the holy faith teaches, so that the perfections are
clearly indicated by “homo;” for the Son is the perfect Son of a perfect
father, and the Holy Spirit is perfect as well.

8,i These people will be detected by a first, a second, and a third piece
of evidence. If it is admitted that a < Son > has been begotten by him at
all, it will be admitted that the Son must be like his Begetter. (2) It is plain
that Aetius calls him by the name, “Offspring,” but holds and believes him
< to be > a creature, though he is called a “Son” by grace — as the surveyor
of the realms of the heavens, divider of the indivisible, and measurer of
our salvation in Christ, has seen fit to call him. (3) But the argument of all
these people who covertly introduce the doctrine of the creaturehood of
Christ falls flat, as Aetius’ will. (4) For I shall say to him with perfect jus-
tice, “Tell me, Mister, what can you say of the Son of God? Do you call him
a creature, or an offspring? If you say he is a creature, stop hiding your
outrage with plausible-sounding language by terming him the Father’s
Offspring! (5) Nothing that is created, is ‘begotten’; and if it is begotten, it
is not created. Never mind even saying ‘begotten!’ You have no business
pronouncing the words of the truth even with one expression. Tell us your
whole scheme so that we may learn who you are and escape your plot,
you fisher for souls, you schemer against those who trust you! (6) Come
on, do you worship the Son of God, or don’t you?”

“Yes,” says Aetius, "I worship him.”

ANOMOEANS

519

“Do you worship him as God, or not?”

“Yes,” he says, "I worship him as God.”

“Then what kind of a God can be creature, as you say he is, and still be
worshiped?”

8,7 For suppose that God, who is fit to be worshiped, made the one
creature and consented that he be worshiped, but their creator did not
want any of the others worshiped and instead censured the worshipers
of a creature, teaching them by Law, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any
likeness, and thou shalt not worship it, neither in heaven, nor in earth, nor
in the waters.” 27 (8) And the apostle says, “They worshiped the creature
more than the creator, and were made fools.” 28 Why did God forbid the
worship of all creatures, < but consent that this one be worshiped? > Is
there “respect of persons with God,” 29 then? Never! (g) By the fact that
this One is worshiped, God has shown, in every way, that the One who
is worshiped is different from the creature and that the creature which
is worshiped is different from the Lord, who is fit for worship — the Son
of God, begotten of the Father. For because he is begotten of him, he is
like him and is his Son. He is therefore fit for the worship of all: "Through
him God made all things, and without him was not anything made.” 30
(10) For by him, and by the Holy Spirit who “proceeds from the Father and
receives of the Son,” 31 God made and established all things. “By the Word
of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the
Spirit of his mouth.” 32

8,11 When the Only-begotten, as I mentioned above, said, “that they
may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent,” 33 he distinguished himself from creation, as the apostle says, “one
God, of whom are all things, and we through him; and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 34 (12) And you see how he
showed that there is one God, the Father, but one Lord, the Son begotten
of him. And he didn’t say, “one God, and one Lord together with all God’s
creatures,” but, “one Lord, through whom are all things.” But if there is one

27 Exod 20:4.

28 Rom 1:25.

29 Rom 2:11.

30 Cf. John 1:3.

31 John 15:26; 16:14.

32 Ps 32:6.

33 John 17:3.

34 1 Cor 8:6.

520

ANOMOEANS

Lord through whom are all things, he is not one of them all, but the maker
of all, the creator of all created things.

9,1 But since he through whom are all things is the Son, begotten of the
Father and the Father’s offspring, then, as befits the creator of all things,
he is unlike them all. (2) Since God the Father, of whom are all things, [is
called] “one,” and the “Lord Jesus by whom are all things” [is called] “one,”
the text just mentioned has clearly shown that the Son is of the Father,
since it is tied together by the “one” and the “one,” and by “of whom” and
“by whom.” But by saying, “by whom are all things,” it has declared won-
derfully well that the Son “by whom are all things” cannot be one of the
rest, showing that there is a Father, and there is a Son — the only-begotten
Lord — of the One who is the Father.

9,3 But the apostle was saying these things by the Holy Spirit’s inspira-
tion; he therefore did not need to give any proof of the Spirit. This was
not because the Spirit is not glorified with the Father and the Son, or
to designate him as one of all the things created through the Son. (4) It
was enough that the Spirit was included with the Father and the Son in
the Son’s sure confession, “Go baptize in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 35 So when the apostle spoke — or rather,
when the Holy Spirit spoke in him — he said nothing about himself. The
knowledge of him was clear, and undisputed by the Jews; but it was trea-
sured up [rather than published], so that the Holy Spirit would not be the
one to commend himself. (5) But the apostle was inspired by the Holy
Spirit and spoke of the Father and the Son, to show that the Holy Trinity
is eternal, and never ceases to be.

But don’t be surprised if you hear, “one God, of whom are all things,
and one Lord, by whom are all things.” 36 (6) By calling the Son, “Lord,” the
apostle by no means denied his Lordship and Godhead. And by saying,
“one God, of whom are all things,” he did not deny God’s Godhead and
Lordship. “Lord” goes together with “God” and “God” with “Lord,” and this
will make no difference to the tidings which God has truly proclaimed to
us through the apostles, for our salvation.

9,7 But by a clumsy construction of God’s oracles this Different and
his followers have turned the way of the truth < to falsehood >. In the
end, through distracting their minds with debate and verbal arguments,
they have turned their backs on the truth and been deprived of the heav-

35 Matt 28:19.

36 1 Cor 8:6.

ANOMOEANS

521

enly realms. (8) For — if they are willing to pay attention to “the light of
the Gospel” 37 — every word will convict them. Though the Only-begotten
surely came in the flesh, he nowhere says, “The Father who created me
hath sent me.” Nor did the Father ever say, in the Gospel or the Old Testa-
ment, “I have created the Son for you.” [We read], “The Father hath sent
me,” 38 “I came forth from the Father and am come,” 39 and, “He who is in
the bosom of the Father,” 40 and, “The Word was with God, and the Word
was God.” 41 (g) And there is much that we can learn about our salvation,
and not be carried away with this devil’s tricky teaching.

9,10 For, consumed with envy at man’s glory, the devil is out to destroy
mankind, and has devised various schemes. The first was through igno-
rance, the second through idolatry, another time it was through vice — but
now, at length, it is through the error and imposture of the sects, to turn
man away from the heavens by every possible method.

10,1 How much my poor mind will find to say to you, Different! It is
quite true that you are “Different”; you have made your way of life and
your thinking different from those who have the understanding of God
and hold the faith of the truth. (2) You have not become different from
other people by your progress in goodness; you have become different
from the sons of God’s church by abandoning the way of the truth. By
taking as your excuse the Son of God who is like his Father and calling
him “different from” the Father, you have become “different” and been
awarded this title, since you are no longer like those who are to be saved
in God.

10,3 But now then, not to waste my time in investigating him, let me
refute him from the things he said himself to certain persons in a dialecti-
cal communication. (4) For it seems that he gave some indication of his
mistakes in argument in his treatise itself — which contains not one word
of faith which is wholly innocent and pure faith, and ordered in the Holy
and meek Spirit. (5) First, I set down in full the work which seems to be
his, which has come into my possession, to use it against him for the rest
of the refutation of his treatise. The work is as follows:

37 2 Cor 4:4.

38 John 10:36.

39 John 8:42.

40 John 1:18.

41 John 1:1.

522

ANOMOEANS

The Treatise of “The Different" Aetius

11,1 During the time of my persecution by the Temporists 42 some of them,
among many other things, appropriated a brief treatise concerning the
Ingenerate God and the Generate which I had composed with particular
effort, corrupted it with insertions and omissions and issued it, after altering
the sequence of the argument. It fell into my hands afterwards because one
of the virtuous brought it to me, (2) and I have been obliged, like a father,
to correct the treatise again and send it to you, all you male and female
champions of piety, to show you that the brief discourse accords with the
sense of the holy scriptures. With its help you will be able, with brief counter-
arguments, to put a stop to the impudence of everyone — these Temporists
most of all — who tries to contradict you about the Ingenerate God and the
Generate.

11,3 For the ready comprehension and the clarity of my arguments I have
separated objection from objection and solution from solution in the form of
short paragraphs, and have begun with the Ingenerate God,

12,1 Whether it is possible for the Ingenerate God to make a generate
thing ingenerate:

2. 43 If the Ingenerate God transcends every cause, he therefore must also
transcend origination. But if he [indeed] transcends every cause he plainly
transcends origination also. For he neither received his existence from
another nature nor provided himself with existence.

3. But if, not from the inadequacy of his nature but because of his tran-
scendence of every cause, he did not provide himself with existence, how can
anyone concede that there is no difference of essence between the nature
that is provided with existence and the nature that provides it, when such a
nature [as the first ] does not admit of origination?

4. If God remains forever ingenerate and his Offspring forever an Off-
spring the heresy of the homoousion and the homoeousion will be brought
to an end. The essential incomparability [of the two] remains, since either
nature remains endlessly in the rank proper to its nature.

42 “Temporist” is a pejorative term for catholic. Epiphanius takes it to mean that the
catholic position on the Trinity is accused of having an origin recent in time. Athanasius,
Dial. II Trin. 11, takes it to mean that catholics are accused of teaching that the Son was
begotten in time.

43 Aetius’ numbers serve as the paragraph numbers of Epiphanius’ chapter 12.

ANOMOEANS

523

5. If God is ingenerate in essence, the Generate was not produced by a
separation of essence, but God gave it being by virtue of his authority. 44 For
no pious reason can allow that the same essence can be both generate and
ingenerate.

6. If the Ingenerate was generated, what is there to prevent the Generate
from having become ingenerate? For on the contrary, every nature is urged
< away from > that which is not natural to it toward that which is.

7. If God is not wholly ingenerate, there is nothing to prevent his having
generated as an essence. But since God is wholly ingenerate, there was no
separation of his essence for the purpose of generation, but he brought an
Offspring into existence by his authority.

8. If the Ingenerate God is wholly generative, the Offspring was not gener-
ated as an essence, since God’s essence is wholly generative and not generated.
But if God’s essence has been transformed and is called an Offspring, God’s
essence is not unalterable, since the transformation brought about the for-
mation of the Son. But if God’s essence is both unalterable and above genera-
tion, talk of “sons hip” will admittedly be a mere verbal ascription.

9. If the Offspring was in the Ingenerate God in germ, he was “brought
to maturity," after his generation, as we might say, by receiving accretions
from without. Therefore the Son is not “mature” because of the causes of
his generation, but because of the accretions he received. For things which
receive accretions genetically, in the sense of being constituted by them, are
characteristically termed “mature" in a distinctive way.

10. If the Offspring was full grown in the Ingenerate, it is an Offspring by
virtue of properties which were in the Ingenerate, 45 and not by virtue of those
with which the Ingenerate generated it. [But this cannot be], for there can
be no generacy in ingenerate essence; the < same > thing can< not > both be
and not be. An offspring is not ingenerate, and if it were ingenerate it would
not be an offspring, for to say that God is not homogeneous is to offer him
sheer blasphemy and insult.

11. If Almighty God, whose nature is ingenerate, knows that his nature is
not generate, but the Son, whose nature is generate, knows that he is what
he is, how can the homoousion not be a lie? For the one knows himself to be
ingenerate, but the other, generate.

44 Wickham s^ouaia ujisoryjaav avzo, Holl & MSS; ei; oucia? imooTV](jdoT]i;.

45 Wickham: el; uv ev (tco) dyEwriTt}) yEvvv^a earl, Holl, Amidon, MSS: ev yevvvjtco

YEVVV)[ia EC7TI.

524

ANOMOEANS

12. If ingeneracy does not represent the reality of God but the incompa-
rable name is of human invention, God owes the inventors thanks for their
invention of the concept of ingeneracy, since in his essence he does not have
the superiority the name implies.

13. If ingeneracy is only something external observers observe to be God’s,
the observers are better than the One observed, for they have given him a
name which is better than his nature.

14. If ingeneracy is not susceptible of generation, this is what we main-
tain. But if it is susceptible of generation, the sufferings of generation must
be superior to the real nature of God.

15. If the Offspring is unchangeable by nature because of its Begetter,
then the Ingenerate is an unchangeable essence, not because of its wili, but
because of its essential rank.

16. If “ingeneracy” is indicative of essence, it may property be contrasted
with the essence of the Offspring. But if “ingeneracy” means nothing, alt the
more must “Offspring” mean nothing.

But how < could > nothing be contrasted with nothing? If the expression,
“ingenerate,” is contrasted with the expression, “generate,” but silence suc-
ceeds the expression, the hope of Christians may well begin and end [there],
since it rests in a particular expression, and not in natures which are such
as the meaning of their names imply.

17. If the term, “ingenerate," as against the term, “offspring “contributes
nothing toward superiority of essence, the Son, who is [therefore] surpassed
only verbally , 46 will know that those who have termed him, “Son,” are his
betters, and not He who is termed his “God and Father.”

18. If the ingenerate essence is superior, and innately superior, it is
ingenerate essence per se. 47 For it is not superior to generation deliberately,
because it so wills, but because this is its nature. Since ingenerate nature per
se is God, it allows no reasoning to think of 48 generation in connection with
it and resists ail examination and reasoning on the part of generate beings.

19. If “ingenerate,” when applied to God, connotes privation but “ingener-
ate” must be nothing, what reasoning can take away nothing from a non-
existent thing ? But if it means something that is, who can separate God from
being, that is, i.e., separate him from himself?

46 Holl, Amidon, MSS {mepExopEvoui;, Wickham without explanation {OTEpexopEvop.

47 Wickham, Codex Jenensis aiixo oucia, Holl, MSS autoouaia.

48 Holl tentatively, Wickham 7rapd, MSS xara.

ANOMOEANS

525

20 . Iftke “privations" of states are the removals of them, “ingenerate" as
applied to God is either the privation of a state, or a state of privation. But
if “ingenerate” is the privation of a state, how can something God does not
have be counted as one of his attributes? If “ingenerate" is a state, however,
a generate essence must be assumed to precede it, so that it may acquire
the [new] state and be called, “ingenerate.” If, however, the generate essence
partook of an ingenerate essence [to begin with], it has been deprived of its
generation 49 by undergoing the loss of a state.

Generacy must then be an essence but ingeneracy a state. But if “offspring"
implies a coming to be, it is plain that the word means a state, whether the
Offspring is made out of some essence, or whether it is what it is called, an
“Offspring."

21 . If “ingeneracy” is a state and “generacy” is a state, the essences 50 are
prior to the states; but even though the states are secondary to the essences,
they are more important.

Now if ingeneracy is the cause of generacy and means that there is an
offspring which implies the cause of its own being, “offspring” denotes an
essence, not a state. < On the other hand >, since ingeneracy implies nothing
besides itself, how can the ingenerate nature be not an essence, but a state?

22 . If every essence is ingenerate like Almighty God’s, how can one say
that one essence is subject to vicissitudes while another is not? But if the
one essence remains above quantity and quality and, in a word, all sorts
of change because of its classification as ingenerate, while the other is sub-
ject to vicissitudes < and yet > is admitted to have something unchangeable
in its essence, we ought to attribute the characteristics of these essences to
chance, or, as is at any rate 51 logical, call the active essence ingenerate, but
the essence which is changed, generate ? 52

23 . If the ingenerate nature is the cause of the nature that has come to
be, and yet “ingenerate” is nothing, how can nothing be the cause of a thing
that has come to be’?

24 . If “ingenerate” is a privation but a privation is the loss of a state, and
if a “loss” is completely destroyed or changed to something else, how can

49 The translation of this clause is problematical. Wickham: “It thrusts aside all burden
of inquiry and reasoning from generate beings;” so, approximately, Amidon.

50 Wickham: ysvEtjEcop, Holl, Amidon, MSS: dyEWEofac;.

51 Wickham i) to ys ouv, Holl and MSS 1] to youv.

52 Wickham Tip auTopaTco EmTpsifiai ocpElXopsv to: xcnra Tap 7rpo£ippv]p£vap, Holl and MSS
tw auTopaTtp EmTpsiJjou tov qsiXouvTa xara to: npoEipvjpEva.

526

ANOMOEANS

the essence of God be named for a changing or vanishing state by the title,
“ingenerate?”

25. If “ingenerate" denotes privation, which is not an attribute of God,
why do we say that God is ingenerate but not generate?

26. If, as applied to God, “ ingenerate ” is a mere name, but the mere
expression elevates the being of God over against all generate things, then
the human expression is worth more than the being of the Almighty, since it
has embellished God the Almighty with incomparable superiority.

27. If there is a cause to correspond with everything generate but the
ingenerate nature has no cause, “ingenerate” does not denote a cause but
means an entity.

28. If whatever is made, is made by something, but ingenerate being
is made neither by itself nor by something else, “ingenerate” must denote
essence.

29. If the ingenerate being is implicitly indicated to be the cause of the Off-
spring’s existence and, in contrast with every [other] cause, is invariable, it is
incomparable essence in itself 33 and its matchlessness is not implied for any
reason external to itself but because, being ingenerate, it is incomparable
and matchless in itself . 54

30. If the Almighty surpasses every nature, he surpasses it because of his
ingeneracy, and this is the reason for the permanence of generate things. But
if “ingenerate” does not denote an essence, how will the nature of generate
things be preserved?

31. If no invisible thing preexists itself in germ, but each remains in
the nature allotted to it, how can the Ingenerate God, who is free from
any category, sometimes see his own essence in the Offspring as second-
ary but sometimes see it in ingeneracy as prior, on the principle of “first
and second ”

32. If God retains an ingenerate nature, there can be no question of his
knowing himself as [both] originated and unoriginated. If, on the other
hand, we grant that his essence continues to be ingenerate and generate, he
does not know his own essence, since his head is in a whirl from origination
and non-origination. But if the Generate too partakes of ingenerate nature
and yet remains without cessation in his generate nature, he knows himself
in the nature in which he continues to remain, but plainly does not know his
participation in ingeneracy; for he cannot possibly be aware of himself as
both of ingenerate and of generate essence.

53 Wickham: 1] to yE ouv Holl and MSS to youv.

54 Wickham: djcrTtep ouv eoti Holl and MSS ojctttep oux eot(.

ANOMOEANS

527

If, however, the Generate is contemptible because of his proneness to
change, then unchangeable essence is a natural rank, since the essence of
the Ingenerate admittedly transcends every cause.

33. If the Ingenerate transcends all cause, but there are many ingener-
ates they will [all] be exactly alike in nature. For without being endowed with
some quality common [to all], while yet having some quality of its own —
[a condition not possible in ingenerate being] — one ingenerate nature would
not make, while another was made.

34. If every essence is ingenerate, one will not differ from another in self-
determination. How, then, can we say that one [such] being is changed and
another causes change, when we will not allow God to bring them into being
from an essence that has no [prior] existence?

35. If every essence is ingenerate, every one is exactly alike. But the
doing and suffering of an essence that is exactly like [all the others] must
be attributed to chance. However, if there are many ingenerates which are
exactly alike, there can be no enumeration of their ways of differing from one
another. For there could be no enumerations of their differences, either in
general or in some respect, since every difference which implies classification
is already excluded from an ingenerate nature.

36. If “ingenerate” and “God" are exact parallels and mean the same
thing, the Ingenerate begot an Ingenerate. But if “ingenerate” means one
thing while “God” means something else, there is nothing strange in God’s
begetting God, since one of the two receives being from ingenerate essence.
But if, as is the case , 55 that which is before God is nothing, “ingenerate” and
“God” do mean the same, for “Offspring" does not admit of ingeneracy. Thus
the Offspring does not allow himself to be mentioned in the same breath with
his God and Father.

12,37 May the true God, who is ingenerate in himself and for this reason
is alone addressed as “the only true God” by his messenger, Jesus Christ, who
truly came into being before the ages and is truly a generate entity, preserve
you, men and women, from impiety, safe and sound from impiety in Christ
Jesus our Savior, through whom be all glory to our God and Father, both now
and forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

The end of Aetius’ treatise

13,1 And this, as I said, is the beginning of my refutation of his corrupt
passages, part of which have come into my possession. (For they say that,

55 Wickham auxo dyEVvrjTog Dummer: auToayEVVvpos which is synonymous; Holl and
MSS auToyEVvrjTo;. The last cannot be what Aetius wrote but is certainly what Epiphanius
read, cf. 54,2.

528

ANOMOEANS

in all, he composed 300 other paragraphs like these, filled with impiety.)
(2) But I publish the treatise here for scholarship’s sake, if you like, as
though a snake’s body were decaying and rotting, and a good man had
gathered up the bones of the carcass of the snake whose treachery might
do harm to somebody. Aetius boasts of having put this treachery into writ-
ing for "certain persons,” and his treatise begins as follows. (3) But < by >
God’s inspiration let me prepare a preventative antidote because of it,
for those who would like to be cured of his poison, by culling out the
medicines of the words of the sacred scripture, from the beginning [of the
treatise] until its end. I shall place my refutations next to each passage in
these paragraphs of syllogistic reasoning, as follows:

14.1 During my persecution by the Temporists some of them, among many
other things, appropriated a brief treatise I had composed with particular
effort on the subject of the Ingenerate God and the Generate, corrupted it
with insertions and omissions, and issued it after altering the sequence of
the argument. It fell into my hands afterwards because one of the virtuous
brought it to me, (2) and I have been obliged, like a father, to correct the
treatise again and send it to you, all you male and female champions of
piety, to show you that the brief discourse accords with the sense of the holy
scriptures. With its help you will be able, with brief counter-arguments, to put
a stop to the impudence of everyone — these Temporists most of all — who
tries to contradict you about the Ingenerate God and the Generate.

14.3 For the ready comprehension and the clarity of my arguments I have
separated objection from objection and solution from solution in the form of
short paragraphs, and have begun with the Ingenerate God.

15.1 Whether you think they are lengthy, or indeed, brief, I shall give
the refutation of the exact words of your pompous dialectic and uselessly
laborious syllogisms, without either omitting or repeating the endless
number of the passages. (2) And in the first place, you wrote to the “male
and female champions” of your connection [in the words I have given]
above, and said that certain ‘Temporists” had appropriated the portion
of your treatise that was then in your hands, < and had corrupted > it.
But < going by > your expression which we find here, 56 < one > would
sooner convict you and your disciples — not to say, your dupes — of bear-
ing this name.

15.3 For God’s holy faith, which was there from the beginning and yet
never grows old, is always in existence. Its foundation has been estab-

56 Holl Sid Tyjs E$Eupe0E(<jr]s napa <701 Xii-EW?; MSS epcoTV]0Ei(; 7rapd <joi Xe^eup.

ANOMOEANS

529

lished and it has its Master, who is not in time. Hence it is not temporal;
it is forever, shares the citizenship of the angels, and adorns the saints
in every generation. (4) No, you’re the temporist! You have been fed on
imposture and become vain in mind, and mix your fodder indiscrimi-
nately with the flock’s thorny pasturage. For none of the ancients held
your views, Aetius — you who write against the “temporal,” but are “tem-
poral” yourself, and of no ancient origin. (5) But at the very beginning
of your introduction, when you said you had written the little book, you
startled the world in the terribly brilliant introduction to your work by
saying, “Ingenerate and Generate God” 57 — excuse my making fun of your
use of the terms of such a lengthy coinage of new names.

16,1 For what Christian, in possession of God’s saving message, would
desert this-would be inspired by your mythological fiction to come, leav-
ing the eternal God and his eternal Spirit, hear from you about a “generate
God,” and make a fool of himself by learning to “worship the creature
more than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen?” 58 (2) We have
no created God, no manufactured God, but One who is uncreated and
unoriginate, begotten of the Father without beginning and not in time.
(3) For even though you play games with “generate” and choose to make
“generate” a synonym [for “begotten”], I shall not accept your expression
even if you mean no less by it than “begotten of the Father.” “Men do not
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles,” 59 and a correct statement is not
to be expected from a man who is in error. The Lord silenced the demons
too, when they confessed that he was Christ.

But you claim that your dinky little book is in accordance with the
sense of the sacred scriptures. (4) Tell me, which sacred scripture ever
taught the worship of a created God? As to God’s being “ingenerate,” we
can all see that. (5) But even this is not in the sacred scripture in so many
words; we fitly think and say this with piety on the basis of correct and
godly reasoning and our understanding of God itself.

16,6 But you say that you arranged your propositions as a short, simple
statement in the form of short paragraphs, so that the male and female
champions, as you call them — (dupes, actually) — will know how to answer
everyone. (7) Therefore, though I am nobody, stupid, and not important
but worth far less than many in God’s holy church, I < shall take up >

57 So Epiphanius appears to understand Aetius' title. See below at 16,1-2.

58 Rom 1:25.

59 Matt 7:16.

530

ANOMOEANS

those remarks which you think are weighty and clever, and which you
have worked up as a reply to important people — or rather, as your shout
against the truth — and, as I said, give the refutation of this incoherent,
completely worthless nonsense of yours.

17.1 And this will do as my modest response to your prologue. But
[next] I shall insert your propositions, one after another, and beside each
statement and proposition put the answers to and refutations of your syl-
logistic arguments, so that God’s servants and true champions, reading
this and learning the whole of your absurdity, can laugh at it, saying “The
haughtiness of thine heart” 60 has made this for you. (2) “For thou didst
say in thine heart, I shall ascend to heaven, and above the stars of heaven
will I set my throne. I shall sit on a lofty mountain; upon the lofty moun-
tains of the north will I ascend above the clouds and be like unto the
Most High. But now shalt thou descend to hades, to the foundations of
the earth,” and so on 61

18.1 And this is the beginning of Aetius’ propositions:

1. Whether it is possible for the Ingenerate God to make a generate thing
ingenerate:

Refutation. First, it is impious to begin with to think of impossibility in
connection with God, or the only < impossibility > is what is unsuitable
to his Godhead — and this, not because he cannot do it, but because evil
is unsuitable to the God for whom nothing is impossible. It is impossible
for his mighty divine goodness, and for him who is good, because doing
evil is impossible [to him].

18.2 And otherwise, if God regards the < making > of the ingenerate
generate as a good work, but lacks the power to bring something that was
going on well to a good conclusion, this must be a defect of power for
God, who wants to do the better thing, but cannot. (3) But if the ingener-
ate is good, but the generate was well made in its own order, then, since
the order of the generate is a good order which stems from a good God,
and which God regards as good, God would not make a thing ingenerate
which had been well generated. He would be satisfied with its being good
in its own way.

18,4 Therefore, since the order of a good thing is not unchanged
because it cannot be changed, but because it is good that it be as it is, the

60 Obad 3.

61 Isa 14:13-15.

ANOMOEANS

531

ingenerate God is good. And the things he makes are good in their own
order, without taking the name of “ingenerate.”

For God did not make created “gods,” so that one could be equated with
the other and remove the opposition between “greater” and “lesser” by the
title, ["god”]. (5) If the one is an ingenerate God and the other a generate
God, since their natures have nothing in common the generate God can-
not by his nature share < in > the rank of the name [of God], except by a
kindly intended misuse of the word — and then only if the well endowed
God grants this to the lesser God by participation.

18.6 But the lesser God would never call himself by the greater God’s
name, but knows that he is entirely ineligible to have the natural rank and
title. Someone ought to tell you, “The Word was God,” 62 Aetius — not, “The
Word became God.” If indeed the Word “became” anything, how will he get

< the > title of nobility by nature, or how will he be made equal to God’s
rank? Or how can the phrase, “was God,” be got rid of? The time implied
by “was” does not allow for the slightest distinction [between Gods].

18.7 But let me inform you that the God who has no beginning, the
ingenerate God, begot, of himself, a God like himself — and not only like
him, but in every way equal to him. (8) And he did not create him. Oth-
erwise, since the creature had been unlike [his creator], he would have
made the name “God” inapplicable because of the extent of the differ-
ence [between the two]. For the begetter cannot beget an offspring which
is unlike him and not his equal, and the begotten cannot be unlike his
begetter, (g) Here, then, < pious reason* > will comprehend the fact of
[the Son’s] sameness [as the Father] from the Gospel’s text, “All that
the Father hath are mine.” 63 In other words: “The Father is God; I am
God. The Father is life; I am life.” And everything else that fits the Father

< fits > the Son and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead, with no distinction
between the persons of the Trinity. (10) For we are plainly assured of the
perfect knowledge that the subsistent Word < has been begotten > of the
Father without beginning and not in time, and that the subsistent Holy
Spirit < proceeds from > the Father and < receives of > the Son.

19,1 2. If the Ingenerate God transcends every cause, he therefore must
also transcend origination. But if he [indeed] transcends every cause he
plainly transcends origination also. For he neither received his existence
from another nature nor provided himself with existence.

62 John 1:1.

63 John 17:10.

532

ANOMOEANS

19,2 Refutation. If the ingenerate God transcends every cause, and
yet the One whom he generated was generated unworthily of him and
not his equal, yet still retains the Father’s transcendent name, the Off-
spring disgraces his Begetter by having the dignity of a name different
from creatures, but not doing honor to his Maker as creatures do. (3) For
the things outside of him win glory for their Maker without being their
Maker’s equals or having his name, but by being made as servants to their
Maker’s glory, so that the superiority, even to them, of Him < who > is
superior to the things that have been made glorious may be observed,
proportionately, from the glorious creatures. (4) If, however, the one who
is not yet given their name but who has equal rank by co-essentiality with
the superior Being from birth, is [still of] a different kind than the supe-
rior Being < because of > the difference between them, he will even reduce
the Superior Being’s rank, since the Offspring’s relation to the Superior is
changed. (5) The Offspring is therefore not understood by faith to be the
like offspring of a like parent and equal offspring of an equal parent, on
the analogy of a physical offspring, but as God of God, light of light, and
the subsistent Word of the Father. The unchanging glory of the Superior is
thus preserved, in that the Superior < is > not his own cause, but generates
from himself the equal of his pure and incomprehensible essence — co-
essentially generates the real and subsistent divine Offspring. This is not
a lifeless image, but replicates the Father’s kind — as, to assign equality
with the Begetter to the Offspring, the sacred scripture says, “image of the
invisible God.” 64

19,6 And lest it be supposed that there is a difference between image
and identity, the Father himself, to provide for the restoration of our life,
said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness” 65 before this
last text (i.e., Col 1:15). He did not distinguish himself from the Son, but
used a dual and equivocal expression, “Let us make man,” to mean two,
himself and the Son — or, indeed, I would also say the Holy Spirit. (7) And
< by using the words, “in image and in likeness” > of the image’s exacti-
tude, and saying besides with two words that [the Son] is not < unlike >
[the Father], he said that there is one image. But with "our” he declared
that it is the image of two persons, and that the man who is being made,
is not being made in the image of the one but in the likeness of the two,
and is being made an exact image. This makes it entirely clear that the

64 Col 1:15.

65 Gen 1:26.

ANOMOEANS

533

superiority of the Father, the Son and the Fioly Spirit remains identical
and unvarying.

19,8 For neither the Father, the Son nor the Fioly Spirit has taken any-
thing from another nature, or given another nature participation in his
nature and rank. Nor did the Only-begotten and the Holy Spirit originate
from the Father by an alteration of his nature, nor by division of it nor
emanation from it. He has declared to us, plainly and consistently, that,
as the ingenerate and uncreated nature was always superior, so a superior
Offspring and Holy Spirit were always of him.

20.1 3. But if, not from the inadequacy of his nature but because of bis
transcendence of every cause, be did not provide himself with existence, bow
can anyone concede that there is no difference of essence between the nature
that provides existence and the nature that is provided with existence, when
such a nature [as the first] does not admit of origination?

20.2 Refutation. You should look up, Aetius, realize your pitiable condi-
tion, and put a stop to the worse than impiety of your rash notion, < or >
no one will suppose that I have not caught your madness and been over-
awed by such temerity, but [rather] am giving godly counsel to you and
myself. (3) For by supposing that, in the essentials and the things becom-
ing to God, God is unlike and not the equal of the Son he has begotten,
and by < seeing fit* > < to preach > with extreme imposture that < the* >
Son < is “of” him > 66 by some holy act of creation, you are preaching, if
anything, that God is like the Son in the most unsuitable ways, which do
not become his Godhead.

20,4 In the first place, to think of God with such profoundly stupid
irreverence is the fruit of impiety, or rather, of a diseased mind. (5) By
saying that < he > is [either] his own cause, or else that he < provided >
himself with existence, you, in your search and quest for the origin of
God, have entangled yourself in two wicked opinions: that is, either he
always provided himself with existence or he exists by chance. And when
I contemplate your wicked piece of reasoning I am frightened and shake
with fear. (6) Stop it! Let’s stop it! It is enough for us and our piety to
understand and believe that the everlasting God was always God!

Indeed, you said, as though you had bestowed a great honor on God —
though in this too you speak and reason foolishly — that God neither
provides himself with existence nor < is his own cause >. On your premises,
then, if the preservation of the faith depends upon words and arguments,

66 Holl: <y]youyEvo<;> . . .E^ auxou tov 0eov; MSS: e£sX0eiv 0eov.

534

ANOMOEANS

< the divine nature would appear* > to be in a category similar to that of
inferior beings and wretched bodies. (7) No creature, from bugs to man,
from men to angels, is its own cause or has provided itself with existence.
(8) No created thing has provided its own being; each has received the
inception of its existence from the only Being who [truly] is. So since you
have been < foiled > and beaten by the arguments you thought you could
use, stop your unnatural effort to measure yourself against One higher
than you! For you will be thwarted in every way since, even though he
derives his rank from the Father < by > begetting — or by generation if you
will — the Only-begotten is equal to and like the Father, (g) He will be
no different from his equality with the Father because of this, just as he
will be no different from his likeness because created things cannot pro-
vide themselves with being — in the same way that He who is their supe-
rior and in all ways perfect did not have his origin from anything before
him. (10) For he did not begin to be, either. He was always and is always,
even though he remains as he is and does not provide himself with being.
We have no need of synonymous expressions, but of the consideration

< which* > genuinely < makes for* > piety.

20,11 And otherwise, since you have said, “And if, not from the inad-
equacy of his nature but because of his transcendence of every cause, he
did not provide himself with existence,” learn for your own part that the
Son’s name cannot come from inadequacy, because he has the special fit-
ness for it of co-essentiality with his Begetter. (12) For as transcendence
of every cause is most becoming to the Father, so the same one Godhead
is becoming to the only < Son > of the only Father, with the only Holy
Spirit — a Godhead which, not because of its inadequacy, but because of
its transcendence of each and every thing < that has been made > from
nothing, cannot admit of a cause. For there is one Godhead, which is enu-
merated by one name, “Trinity,” and is proclaimed by candidates for bap-
tism in their one profession of the names of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,”
in the words that truthfully express the equivalence of the naming of a
“Father,” a “Son,” and a “Holy Spirit.”

20,13 But again, you said, “how can one concede that there is no dif-
ference of essence between the nature that provides existence and the
nature that exists, when such a nature [as the first] does not admit of
origination?” And you neither understand, nor have understood, how you
have deprived yourself of knowledge of God’s truth, because you are not
taught the truth by the Holy Spirit, but are trying to penetrate the heavens
by the wisdom of this world, which has been made foolish. (14) You will

ANOMOEANS

535

accordingly hear that [this wisdom] has been brought to naught for you:
“The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain.” 67

20,15 For ffe who begot the subsistent Word begot him equal to him-
self and not different from his Godhead because of the difference between
him and the Offspring, but < in all ways like himself.* > For it would be
entirely inappropriate for us to suppose that the Begetter himself has
begotten the Offspring unworthily of himself, unequal to him, and inferior
to the Begetter. (16) Scripture has said that all things were made through
the Son, the subsistent Word, so as not to count him as a creature, but as
the Father’s like and equal in < everything >, as befits the name, “Father” —
forever < like > Him Who Is, not strange to him but his legitimate Son, as
a Son begotten of him with the same essence.

21.1 4. If God remains forever ingenerate and his Offspring forever an
Offspring the heresy of the homoousion and the homoeousion will be brought
to an end. The essential incomp ar ability [of the two] remains, since either
nature remains endlessly in the rank proper to the nature.

21.2 Refutation. If God remains endlessly and ceaselessly in his ingener-
ate nature, as you have said, but the nature of God is eternal and in cease-
less possession of its rank, not because of something else but because it is
God in his very essence and eternity in its very essence, then, if you call
the Offspring “endless,” he must surely be co-essential with God. For you
have turned round and granted the Son the title on convincing natural
grounds. (3) For you will grant, and will be forced to admit, that “endless”
means entirely boundless and unlimited. Very well, how can he not be
co-essential [with the Father]?

Since you have seen fit to mock the truth and tried to insult it with an
heretical name, < you will be > defeated by the very words you have used.
(4) For you will either admit that the essence you have blasphemously
termed different [from the Father’s] <has> an end — or, once you have
declared him “endless,” you will be obliged to teach the entire unalterabil-
ity of his rank and the indistinguishability of the rank of the endless [Son
from that of the endless Father]. The truth will not allow that the Son has
an end for, because the scripture says, “Of his kingdom there shall be no
end,” 68 he rules forever with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Whatever has a beginning will also have an end, at the pleasure of Him
who provided the thing that had a beginning with being. This is admissible

67 1 Cor 3:20.

68 Luke 1:32.

536

ANOMOEANS

in all cases, but inadmissible in the case of the Son. (5) For he is forever of
the God Who Is and with the God who is, and never ceases to be. There-
fore he was, and will be, co-essential with the Father, an only Son of an
only Father, and in no way different in essence but is as the ranks of the
names imply, of a Godhead which remains identical [with the Father’s],
which has no amalgamation or beginning, which does not provide itself
with being, and which admits of no unlikeness in itself. It is forever and
never ceases to be, and is becoming to itself, for it is forever and cease-
lessly in the rank of the Father of a Son, and of the Son of a Father, and of
a Holy Spirit with a Father and a Son. For the Trinity cannot be compared
with itself, since it admits of no distinction in rank.

22.1 5. If God is ingenerate in essence, the Generate was not produced
by a separation of essence, but God gave it being by virtue of his authority.
For no pious reason can allow that the same essence is both generate and
ingenerate.

22.2 Refutation. You have come forward many times with your “ingen-
erate and generate,” Mister, and brayed out God’s name, and yet buried
your notion of him underneath all sorts of lawlessness. For that name is
an object of longing to one who is in doubt about it, and the resolution
of his doubts is a consolation to the doubter, < but > if his doubts are not
resolved, < he is ashamed* > even to say it. (3) And since you have no
God you are < not > too proud to say this name if only to mouth it, for
you have never received it in the fear of him, in faith and hope, and in
love for him. (4) Otherwise it would have been enough for you to say this
once, and not go beyond the allowable limit for repetition. The Savior’s
pronouncement about you is plain, By their fruits ye shall know them”; 69
for you are dressed in a sheep’s fleece, but inside it you are a disguised
predator, like a wolf.

22,5 For if you were born of the Holy Spirit and a disciple of the apos-
tles and prophets, you ought to go < looking > all the way from the Gen-
esis of the World to the Times of Esther in the twenty-seven books of
the Old Testament, which are counted as twenty-two — and in the four
holy Gospels, the holy apostle’s fourteen Epistles, the General Epistles of
James, Peter, John and Jude and the Acts of the Apostles before their time
together with their Acts during it, the Revelation of John, and the Wis-
doms, I mean Solomon’s and Sirach’s — and, in a word, in all the sacred
scriptures, and realize that you have come to us with a name, “ingener-
ate,” which scripture never mentions. It is not inappropriate for God but

69 Matt 7:16.

ANOMOEANS

537

an orthodox term for him, but it is nowhere to be found in the sacred
scripture, since no one < but > a madman would ever conceive of God as
being generate.

22,6 But neither did they need to say that only the Father is the “ingen-
erate God” because his Son is generate, to avoid giving the impression that
ingeneracy applies not only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Holy
Spirit. Right-mindedness and the Holy Spirit teach all the sons of the truth
of themselves not to be unclear about this, but to have the knowledge of
God which is requisite, and which in itself belongs to < right > reasoning
with regard to piety. (7) But if Anomoeans < say that* > < “ingenerate” is
the proper name for God* >, since he is ingenerate — and I too agree —
, but that they have no
scriptural support for the use of the word. Piety knows of itself, by < cor-
rect > reasoning, that this < expression* > is accurate. For why will there
be a difference 70 of essence < between the Ingenerate > and the Generate,
if the latter really has the name because of his begetting, in some natural
and ineffable sense — in a sense appropriate to God, and to the Son begot-
ten of him without beginning and not in time, in reality and not in some
accommodated sense of the word? (8) I therefore deny that his essence
is created, or that it is different [from the Father’s] because of being a
created thing, but [maintain] that it is really begotten, and not different
from its Begetter.

It thus remains not created and not made, but begotten of the very
essence of God, and unaffected by time. For his true Begetter was not
affected by time, so as to give being to an essence affected by time. For as
is the Offspring, so is the Begetter; as is the Begetter, so is the Begotten.

23.1 6. If the Ingenerate was generated, what is there to prevent the Gen-
erate from having become ingenerate? For on the contrary, every nature is
urged < away from > that which is not natural to it toward that which is.

23.2 Refutation. If the Ingenerate made < the Generate >, and did not
beget him, [then], since the name [of either one] is restricted to the one
identity and neither is comparable with the other because of the real oppo-
sition of their meaning, the meaning of their relationship is the difference
between the one and the other. For neither has anything in common with
the other save only by the authority of the superior nature, < which is >
the cause of all it has created.

70 Sidcrracn? as at 22,1. The word as employed by Aetius is best rendered “separation”;
Epiphanius appears to have understood it in the sense of “difference.”

538

ANOMOEANS

23,3 But since there is another term between “maker” and “made,” and
between “creator” and “creature” — a term close to “ingenerate” but a long
way from “created” — you cannot confuse all this, Aetius, and deliberately
do away with the Son’s share in the perfect name, which reflects the true
relation of the eternal, uncreated Son to the Father. (4) < For > an ingener-
ate, uncreated being can never become a creature, and change back from
creaturehood and return to its ingeneracy once more, even though you
construct a million Aristotelian syllogisms for us, abandoning the simple,
pure heavenly teaching of the Holy Spirit.

24.1 7. If God is not wholly Ingenerate, there is nothing to prevent his hav-
ing generated as an essence. But since God is wholly ingenerate, there was
no separation of his essence for the purpose of generation, but he brought an
Offspring into existence by his authority.

24.2 Refutation. God is both wholly ingenerate and wholly uncreated,
and so is the Son he has begotten, and so is his Holy Spirit < whom > you
belittle, you carnal and natural Aetius who are spiritually discerned! (For
the Holy Spirit has his distinctive character [from God] in a way peculiar
to himself, and is not like the many things which have been created of
him, through him, and because of him.)

24.3 And so [the Son] will have nothing in common with all things, nor
can any creature share his rank. For all things are transitory and pass away;
and he leaves every logical argument behind him, < defeated* > by the
word of instruction from the sacred scripture, “No man knoweth the Son
save the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he
to whom the Son will reveal him.” 71 (4) But the Son reveals him through
the Holy Spirit — not to those who argue about him, but to those who truly
and fully believe in him. For even though you come with a million silly
arguments, you pitiable object as I regard you, you can neither “find out
his judgments” nor “search out his ways,” 72 as the scripture says.

25,1 8. If the Ingenerate God is wholly generative, the Offspring was not
generated as an essence, since God’s essence is wholly generative and not
generated. But if God’s essence has been transformed and called an Offspring
God’s essence is not unalterable, since the transformation brought about the
formation of the Son. But if God’s essence is both unalterable and above gen-
eration, talk of “sonship” will admittedly be a mere verbal ascription.

71 Matt 11:27.

72 Cf. Rom 11:33.

ANOMOEANS

539

25,2 Refutation. Not only you, Aetius, but every “heretic” should “be
avoided after one admonition,” 73 as the holy and wise commandment
directs. For you stand “self-condemned,” 74 inviting your own destruction
and not compelled to this by anyone else. (3) Who can pity one who is
“evil to himself and good to no one?” 75 But for my part, lest you think in
your self-< conceit > 76 that the evils you have propagated in the world are
important objections [to the truth], I myself shall go patiently on grubbing
up your thorny roots with “the two-edged sword, the word of Christ,” 77 by
the sound, full and true confession of faith before God.

25,4 For glory to the merciful < God > who has found what sort you
are — you who occupy the place of Judas, who was counted as one of the
disciples but cut off from them, not by Christ’s intent but because he had
learned the denial of the Lord from Satan. (5) And what need is there
to say anything more to you, since you are entirely different from Chris-
tians — from prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs and all the saints who
are prepared to convict you at the day of judgment? For they endured the
rack until death, they were scourged, torn, consigned to the beasts, hre,
and death by the sword, rather than deny that he is God’s Son and truly
begotten of him.

25,6 For the Father is the Begetter of a sole Only-begotten, and of no
one else after the One. And he is the Pourer forth of a Holy Spirit and of
no other spirit. But he is the creator and the maker of all that he has made
and continues to make. (7) Therefore, since many Sons are certainly not
begotten and many Spirits do not proceed from him, and since the same
Godhead remains forever and is glorified in a Trinity and is never aug-
mented, diminished, or supposed not to exist, the rank is not limited to
a mere name in the case of the Offspring. (8) [If it were], he would have
many brothers like himself after him — as in the text, “I have begotten
sons and exalted them,” 78 and, “who hath begotten the drops of dew,” 79
and, "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,” 80 and,

73 Cf. Tit 3:10.

74 Tit 3:nf.

75 Cf. Ecclus 14:5.

76 Holl ev asauTO) <ir£<puenco[i£vo?> omitting e'xcov. Otherwise, read sv cecxutco evSov also
omitting e'x cov.

77 Cf. Heb 4:12.

78 Isa 1:2.

79 Job 38:28.

80 Eph 3:15.

540

ANOMOEANS

“Have we not all one Father?” 81 and, “my son Jacob,” 82 and, “my firstborn
Israel.” 83 (9) These are all “sons” by a mere verbal locution, by analogy,
because they have progressed from non-existence to existence, and are
not [sons] essentially in the true sense of the word, but are merely < in
locution > and by grace. Therefore they have been created by the One who
is not called Son by grace or merely in name, but < is > truly the Son. [They
are] created by the One, through the One, with him who proceeds from
the One and receives of the Other.

26.1 9. If the Offspring was in the Ingenerate God in germ, he was “brought
to maturity," after his generation, as we might say, by receiving accretions
from without. Therefore the Son is not “mature” because of the causes of
his generation, but because of the accretions he received. For things which
receive accretions genetically, in the sense of being constituted by them, are
characteristically termed “mature” in a distinctive way.

26.2 Refutation. If it had not been agreed that the Begetter is incorpo-
real, your entire performance might be worth staging. You scare no one
else by staging it, however, but confuse your own mind [and deprive it]
of the true confession of faith. (3) God, who is perfect in himself, begot of
himself a perfect Son; he did not, contrary to nature, beget someone else.
For the Son is not unsuited to his Begetter, and has no need to acquire
anything from without. For, after the essence of God, there is nothing
greater than God, which could share with God if he needed acquisition
to come to maturity. (4) For He who is forever the incorporeal God has
begotten the Incorporeal, by generation, to be with him forever; the Per-
fect has forever begotten the Perfect — God, who is spirit, begetting the
subsistent Word, who is also spirit.

26,5 But what you say is silliness, Aetius, you treader on < the heights >,
who get your ideas of God from syllogisms and out of your own logic-
chopping head. For to the God who made all things from nothing and
can do everything perfect at once, who needs no further benefaction and
who governs these things by his decree, you are assigning the name of an
essence that is subject to growth, and > a Word in need of extra divin-
ity, and are not even putting him > on a level with his creatures. (6) For
he made them perfectly at the beginning, and decreed by a wise ordi-
nance that the things that would spring from them would have no need

81 Mai 2:10.

82 Isa 44:2; Jer 26:28.

83 Exod 4:22.

ANOMOEANS

541

to acquire anything. Those are the things in which successive generations
have been and will be born — heaven, for example, the earth, water, air,
the sun, the moon, the stars, and creatures which have been born from
the waters — up to man himself. (7) God did not make heaven imperfect,
or the earth in any way imperfect. He made the earth perfect and heaven
perfect, though it was “invisible and chaos” 84 because of the order he was
to impose on it. But he made water and the original light at the same time,
making all things through the true Light, the uncreated and life-giving.
(8) But then he made the things that have grown from the earth, and the
firmament before that — not half-finished, but he made all things in their
perfection. For < he says >, “Let the earth put forth herbage of pasture,
sowing seed in its likeness upon the earth, and fruit-bearing trees whose
seed is in them in their likeness upon the earth.” 85

26,9 And you see that the things God had made full grown needed no
additional endowment at the moment of their creation; they were “adult,”
as it were, and perfect at once, by God’s decree. (10) But the things which
were bestowed on man to be his subjects and were with him in germ for
him to rule, were not entrusted to him full grown. For man always knew
the Benefactor who bestows being on all, but who is over all, and who pro-
vides each created thing’s benefactions for the sustenance of those who
are of service to him.

26,11 God gave man the earth with the potential for growth, laying
it out before him like a floor, as it were, and entrusting it to him as a
womb, so that man could borrow the seeds produced by the plants which
God had made perfect, and which were sown in the earth with spontane-
ous wisdom as a tree can do, [and the seeds] of other produce — borrow
them from the mature plants in bits as small as a pebble (12) and sow
this produce, and await what would be given for their increase < by > the
perfect God. The crops man sowed would thus be increased from without,
and man would not be unaware of the Provider of the bounty, think him-
self the creator, and be deprived of the truth.

26,13 For even though Noah planted a vineyard, scripture does not
call him planter; he “was made an husbandman.” 86 There is a difference
between God who bestows the original gifts on things that are to be, and
man who has received being from God, to whom God’s husbandry is

84 Gen 1:2.

85 Gen 1:11.

86 Gen 9:20.

542

ANOMOEANS

entrusted. The one is meant to tend the gifts needed for growth to matu-
rity, but the other to provide the maturity, by his gift of his creatures and
of things that grow to maturity. (14) And so with beasts and birds; so with
domestic animals, reptiles and sea creatures. In the beginning they were
all made full grown by the God who commanded it, but by the will of his
wisdom they now need a gift [from him in order to grow]. This is intended
for the mental benefit of man who rules on earth, so that < he > will recog-
nize as God and Lord the God above all, the Provider of the seed-bearing
plants and the gift of their growth.

26,15 For this reason God has left the heavenly bodies, which are not
sown by human hands and which neither beget nor are begotten, in a
full grown state. For they — the sun, moon and stars, for example — did
not spur the human mind on to treachery and the pride of vainglory.
(16) Not even the moon afters its appearance because it is born, wanes
or waxes, but to mark and usher in the seasons, which God has regulated
by the luminaries. (17) If God made corporeal things full grown at the
outset when he chose, although they cause other things to decay, and
they themselves decay, why should he beget the One he has begotten of
himself — One [begotten] of one, the true God who is forever with the true
God by generation — in need of any benefaction?

26,18 All right, Aetius, stop bringing me your worthless Aristotelian syl-
logisms! I have had enough of them and am not to be cheated of our Lord’s
true teaching, which says, “I came forth from the Father and am come.” 87
The saying is not meant loosely, but gives indication of the essence of
God’s perfection and dignity.

27.1 10. If the Offspring was full grown in the Ingenerate, it is an Off-
spring by virtue of properties which, were in the Ingenerate, and not by virtue
of those by which the Ingenerate generated it. [But this cannot be], for there
can be no generacy in ingenerate essence; the same thing can< not > both be
and not be. An offspring is not ingenerate, and if it were ingenerate it would
not be an offspring, for to say that God is not homogeneous is to offer him
sheer blasphemy and insult.

27.2 Refutation. In his desire to understand God through logical termi-
nology of human devising Aetius introduces opposition, and < falsely > 88
tries, with words, to mutilate the sure hope of the plain faith. He contrasts

87 John 8:42.

88 Holl \]>eii8ws, MSS xai co?.

ANOMOEANS

543

unlike with unlike, and sets expression against expression to force them
to mean the impossible, the unlikeness < of the Son > to the Father.

For he himself will be out-argued by the very arguments he has taught
the world. (3) He says, “If the Offspring were full grown in the Ingenerate,
it must be an Offspring by virtue of the properties within the Ingenerate,
and not by virtue of those with which the Ingenerate generated it. [But
this cannot be], for there can be no generacy in an ingenerate essence.
The < same > thing can< not > both be and not be. An offspring is not
ingenerate, and if it were ingenerate it could not be an offspring, for to
say that God is not homogeneous is to offer him insult and blasphemy.”
This means that the ground gained by the words is exposed to attack on
all sides, for the Son cannot be unlike the Father, or unequal to his perfect
Godhead.

27,4 For if he will insist on saying this, but turns < the > words he uses
against each other and keeps saying that “ingenerate” and “generate”
are opposites, he should learn from this < to contrast > the created and
the uncreated. For the one cannot share the rank of the other, which is
ht< ness > for any sort of worship. (5) If a thing that is unlike [God] is fit
for any worship, since it is the equal of something [else that is] unlike
[God] there will no longer be any sense in distinguishing the one thing
from all of them. The unlike < being > cannot be compared, in the position
of its rank, with the One, even though this one thing out of all the unlike
things has greater glory; the unlikeness of < all > of them to the One has
nothing in common with the One. (6) And the end result will be that the
sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and further things inferior to these,
will be objects of worship — but no longer the One, with the One Spirit,
that is, one Trinity, one Godhead, one Worship.

27,7 And so, if we must draw this inference for this reason, it will truly
be the correct one. For the one Word is not like all the words, nor is the
one Son the same as everything that is called a son by analogy; for he
is not one of them all, but the one through whom they all were made.
(8) The thing which Aetius himself at the outset termed impossible, and
an insult to God and sheer blasphemy — because, as he said, there is
< no > non-homogeneity in God — is not part of the difference [between
the Son and the Father], but part of [the Son’s] equality with the Father.
And since the Godhead is not divided but is eternal perfection there are
three Perfects, one Godhead. (9) But, if anything, the doctrine of unlike-
ness was confirmed for us as a proof of the true faith, so that we will
neither hold with, nor believe those who, by a rash preconception, have

544

ANOMOEANS

been unworthily < carried away > 89 with the opinion of the pagans, who
everyone knows worship the whole creation — which is unlike the Father
who is worshiped in the Son, and the Son who is worshiped in the Father
with the Floly Spirit, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

28.1 11. If Almighty God, whose nature is ingenerate, knows that his
nature is not generate, but the Son, whose nature is generate, knows that he
is what he is, how can the homoousion not be a lie? For the one knows himself
to be ingenerate, but the other, to be generate.

28.2 Refutation. As a discriminator and surveyor who deals with the
nature of God, Aetius, a human being who wants to know things that
are beyond human nature, has said and declared that he knows — as a
conclusion, not from scripture but from the arguments of the notions of
mortals — that “Almighty God, who is of an ingenerate nature, knows that
he is not of a generate nature.” (3) But never yet, from the very beginning
of his treatise, does he say even by implication that the Only-begotten is a
Son, as the original Arians did. (4) From the impudent remarks he keeps
making, sons of the truth, observe at every point that he would like the Son
to be entirely different from the Father, and to have no part at all in the
divine nature. For there is no point < in his saying > that < God > knows he
is ingenerate, and that he knows that he is not of a generate nature, and it
is said < merely > < so as not > to call the Son a Son, even in name.

28,5 But his argument will be demolished. The Father is ingenerate and,
because his nature is appropriate to him, has generated the Only-begotten
eternally, < and is a Father* > by his generation of the Only-begotten as
his one and only [Son], and his issuance of the Spirit. [The Holy Spirit
is] an only Spirit who < co-exists >, in addition to the Only-begotten,
with the only Begetter; and who co-exists with the Son who is begotten
without beginning. The Father is spirit and begets spirit; he is not a body
which can be divided physically, and which decays, grows, and can be cut.
(6) Therefore, in the cases of all other things that beget and are begotten,
they may have need of each other for many reasons, 90 but here the rank
of the One who is with the One, is not like all the others.

28,7 Therefore the Begotten himself, who has been uniquely begotten
of him who has awesomely begotten him — just as he has been gener-
ated by the Ingenerate — is fit for his Begetter. He < therefore > begets no
further sons himself — I mean, not of his essence — so that, because < the

89 Holl ’ETXvjvwv 861jotis dTrc^GEiciv, MSS ’E^Xypwv mraleiv.

90 Holl aW.v) <Xcov>, MSS cOX\

ANOMOEANS

545

Son > begets no one else of his essence and the Father is not begotten, the
full glory of their rank may be preserved in both ways, in the single unity
of the rank of Godhead: a perfect Father, a perfect Son, and a perfect Holy
Spirit. (8) And thus the sacred scripture knows that the homoousion is no
lie, and neither is the pious reason that has devoutly learned to glorify and
worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by receiving the grace [for
this] from God.

2g,i 12. Ifingeneracy does not represent the reality of God but the incom-
parable name is of human invention, God owes the inventors thanks for their
invention of the concept of ingeneracy, since in his essence he does not have
the superiority the name implies.

2g,2 Refutation. I too, as I say to address Aetius, < confess the doctrine
of > ingeneracy, and do not deny it even though it is not in sacred scrip-
ture; it is an orthodox idea. But in saying “ingenerate” I acknowledge that
the Father is indeed ingenerate and do not deny that the Son is generate,
although I do say that he is not created. Nor, if I declare that the Son is
generate, can I deny that he has his being from God the Father. For the
Father begot him by an act of generation, and did not create him.

2g,3 For as you purposely pervert yourself — it can’t be anything
else — by thinking all crosswise about the “Generate and Ingenerate,” you
yourself must hear the words, “The thoughts of man are inclined to evil
continually from his youth,” 91 with regard to human arguments, contra-
dictory syllogisms and worthless human thought. (4) < But > I shall say
for my part that, far sooner, it is inappropriate for the uncreated God to
create creatures, and for the unmade God to make them. For if, as Aetius
says, it is not proper that the ingenerate God beget, then it is inadmissible
that the uncreated God create, and that the God who has not been made,
make the things which are to be. (5) But since created things, and the
greater part of their existing visible substance, are there to see, but do not
befit the uncreated God < in the sense of > being his creatures, it will be
desirable, in the end, that there be one uncreated God, and another who is
created and, correspondingly, able to create. Otherwise the Incomparable
will be cited for the change of created things, and, instead of what Aetius
thinks of as suitable, will be regarded as unsuitable. (6) However, since
the created God with the < power > to create is not self-generating but
was created, another God will be required to be his creator, and another
will therefore be invented. And there will be much idle talk about abysmal

91 Gen 8:21.

546

ANOMOEANS

error, for our intellects will no longer be sound, but will be instances of
the saying, “The servants of God were made fools, and from knowledge,
every man was made foolish.” 92

29,7 For no one “liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.” 93
Nor will one learn to know anything but God, who has revealed his true
faith to us < and said >, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him” 94 — and his
Begotten, who has revealed his Father to us and said, “I came forth from
the Father, and am come.” 95 (8) And God did not get his incomparabil-
ity from a human name, nor will the rank of the true, subsistent divine
Word, begotten of the Father without beginning < and > co-essentially,
be impaired because of God’s incomparability. For neither of them is
indebted to human inventions for the names, (g) The Godhead receives
no new rank, and no addition. The Godhead itself, of its fullness, provides
for all — a fullness ever the same and never lessened, but ever bearing in
its own essence the rank of its name, power and essence.

30.1 13. If ingeneracy is only something external observers observe to be
God’s, the observers are better than the One observed, for they have given
him a name which is better than bis nature.

30.2 Refutation. True it is that no one is better than God — say I to
Aetius, the inventor of all this. How can anyone be better than God, when
all things have received their being from God? (3) But since God is the
cause of his creatures, rational and non-rational, visible and invisible, he
himself is better than all, even if his rational creatures are of a mind right
as to orthodoxy, so as to give partial, [not full], honor to That which is bet-
ter than they. (If everything put together, and innumerably more, which
has been thought to apply to God’s praise, could compass the fullness of
his glory, the Better < Being > would always be beyond the conception of
its inferiors — even if they reach out with all their might, and beyond their
might, towards the ascription of praise to their Better. For he is “better,”
not [merely] in word, but in power, name and word.)

30,4 But the praise of the Better by the inferiors will not distinguish
between Incomparable and Incomparable. It knows the superiority
through ingeneracy that is inherent in the Father, and the superiority that
has been begotten of him. (5) Therefore the right mind God has granted
men confesses < the > homoousion. [It confesses this] to avoid inventing

92 Cf. Jer 28:17.

93 Rom 14:7.

94 Matt 17:5.

95 John 8:42.

ANOMOEANS

547

the unlikeness of the Son to the Father, and so dividing the superior, pure
Perfection of ffim through whom it knows [the Son] to have been truly
begotten in an incomparable manner by his Begetter who, because of his
superiority, is beyond any conception.

31.1 14. If ingeneracy is not susceptible of generation, this is what we
maintain. But if it is susceptible of generation, the sufferings of generation
must be superior to the real nature of God.

31.2 Refutation. To speak of any sufferings in God at all is the height of
impiety. The Godhead is entirely immune to suffering, and very far above
anything that occurs in our conflicting notions, < and > Aetius’ argument
will be completely defeated. For whatever takes place in us accompanied
by suffering, exists in God without suffering. (3) For in us, willing is partly
suffering — I do not mean the will to be godly, but the will to do something
beyond our nature, because we cannot do what our will would like — say
a man’s will to fly, soar in the air, view the veins of the abyss, know the
depths of the earth, and things of this sort.

But whatever in me involves suffering, is in existence without suffering
in God. (4) For this reason God can do all he wills; for his nature does not
conflict with his will, while our nature conflicts with as many desires as
we have to reach out towards the impossible.

31.5 And because I have said that God does what he will, let no one by
any means say that he does the unsuitable. Not at all! God wills those things
that he does, proportionately to his rank, with his will not in conflict with
his capability, or his capability contrary to his will. But < God does not do
the unsuitable* >, not because he cannot, but because he will not.

31.6 And otherwise. But come to think of it, after this freedom from
suffering that exists in God, and after < the nature > in us and in other
creatures that is subject to suffering, we must admit that there is, in fact,
still another “suffering”; and after the second kind, a third kind can also
be distinguished. (7) We beget and are begotten with suffering, since our
nature, and that of the other creatures which are begotten and beget, can
be divided and drained, can expand and contract, can be burdened and
lightened, and all the other things which are subject to suffering for such
a reason.

But none of these were in God in his begetting of the Son. (8) If there
were one such thing in God — in accordance with < the > doctrine which
serves < them > as an excuse for repudiating the “Offspring” — I must reply
to them, as the representative of the other side, that there is a second
suffering, suffering in creating, and that we suffer in begetting and being
begotten, (g) God, however, whom you conceive of as a creator and not

548

ANOMOEANS

a begetter and whom, as an argument against us, you accuse of suffering
in begetting, in order to deny the legitimacy of the Son but consign suf-
fering in creation to oblivion — (but this is not a form of suffering in God,
heaven forbid! < God is entirely impassible* >. (10) We neither attribute
suffering to God by the confession that he is the creator of all, nor, again,
do we conceive of < another kind of > suffering in connection with him
by confessing that he has begotten the true Son, truly without beginning
and not in time.)

We therefore know that his nature is incomprehensible and not subject
to suffering. (11) Hence we confess him both as impassible begetter and as
impassible creator. For he begot the Only-begotten without suffering, sent
the Holy Spirit forth from himself without being divided, and created what
has been and is being created without being afflicted by ills or suffering.
And he does what he will, in keeping with his Godhead, without reflecting
first in order to determine by consideration whether the thing to be done
ought to be done or willing to do a thing and, because of suffering, lacking
the power to gratify will with performance. (12) He possesses at once will,
deed, the begetting of the Only-begotten, and the creation of all things, for
the divine nature and rank is far beyond the conception of Aetius’ logic,
and the logic of all humanity. God is superior to all invention, and gives
way to no suffering but is far beyond all sufferings and any conception.

32.1 15. If the Offspring is unchangeable by nature because of its Beget-
ter, then the Ingenerate is an unchangeable essence, not because of his will,
but because of its essential rank.

32.2 Refutation. How long has this man been coming to me with the
same thing to say, and never going beyond its content? From beginning to
end he has described exactly the same things, and nothing else, about the
same things. He has revealed no mysteries to me, (3) and has not taught
me God as he professes to; nor faith, working with which the apostles, with
a sound confession of the truth, raised the dead, cleansed lepers and < per-
formed > all the other acts of good concord, by which they gave examples
of the real working [of miracles]. Instead he expounds useless, boastful
syllogisms which do not go beyond their repetition, but are just that and
nothing else. Please, then, none of you readers blame me if 1 attack the
same points myself, since 1 am obliged to reply to his repetition.

32,4 For the Offspring is unchangeable as it befits Godhead to be, and
the Begetter is unchangeable as, correspondingly, it befits his unchange-
able nature that he be. The Begetter continues forever to have the Son
he has begotten, and allows his creatures no expectation of knowing the
Father without the Son, and of ever knowing the Begotten without the

ANOMOEANS

549

Father, and his perfect Spirit who proceeds from the Father and receives
of the Son. (5) And this befits the rank of God’s essence — not to need any
additional rank but to have it eternally in its proper identity.

33.1 16. If “ingeneracy” is indicative of essence, it may properly be con-
trasted with, the essence of the Offspring. But f “ingeneracy" means nothing,
all the more must “ Offspring ” mean nothing.

But how < could > nothing be contrasted with nothing? If the expression,
“ingenerate, ” is contrasted with the expression, “generate" but silence suc-
ceeds the expression, the hope of Christians may well begin and end [there]
since it rests in a particular expression, not in natures which are such as the
meaning of their names implies.

33.2 Refutation. After learning to stupefy the minds of the simple, why
do these people love to anticipate the points against themselves! Aetius,
who has his hope merely in an expression and not in truth, has impu-
dently come forward to pin it on me, although it does not embarrass him
to confess that the Son of God and God the Father < differ > in a mere
word. And yet I, of all people, confess that the Father is real, the Son is
real, and the Holy Spirit is real; for nothing else can be compared with
the Trinity.

33.3 And therefore the homoousion is truly the stay of my confession,
and not as an expression that can be canceled by use and disuse, like
Aetius’ opinion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (4) There is
actually a true Father, and actually a true Son and Holy Spirit, however
many worthless syllogisms Aetius sows broadcast. As the sacred scripture
says of such people, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” 96 and, ‘The
Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vain,” 97 and so on.

34.1 17 . If the term, “ingenerate,” as against the term, “offspring" contrib-
utes nothing toward superiority of essence, the Son, who is [therefore] sur-
passed only verbally, will know that those who have termed him "Son” are his
betters, not He who is termed his “God and Father.”

34.2 Refutation, No matter how much play-acting Aetius does for me,
no pious reason can allow that those who have received being from Him
Who Is are better < than the Son >. For he himself agrees that they have
been made through him. (3) For those who have been vouchsafed his
kindness, < and > are privileged to be called Christians because they truly
know him and have been taught, not by flesh and blood but by the Father,

96 1 Cor 1:19.

97 Ps 93:11.

55 °

ANOMOEANS

and who are therefore rightly called blessed — like him (i.e., Peter) who
recognized the Son of God, with the addition of “living” 98 [to “God”] — have
not learned to call him “Offspring,” as a verbal expression, but as a “true
Son begotten of a true Father.” Nor are they spiritually discerned, < as >
He who is spirit and only-begotten < discerns > the soulish Aetius as inca-
pable of receiving the things of the Spirit.

34,4 < For* > even though he says, “I go unto my Father and your
Father, unto my God and your God,” 99 < the Son remains above the beings
which have been created through him* >. (5) Neither of these names can
be equated with names of other sorts; the truth abides forever, and each
order which is needed in the Son of God truly teaches it clearly. (6) For
“my Father and your Father” cannot apply to them in the fleshly sense;
how can God, who did not assume flesh, be the Father of flesh? And “my
God and your God” cannot apply to the Son’s divine nature and the dis-
ciples’ adoption as sons. (7) With < the words >, “my God and your God,”
he who tells the truth in all things for our < salvation > was mysteriously
assuring the disciples of his human nature. When he said, “my God and
your God,” he < meant God’s natural > relationship to him by the “my” —
and at the same time his relationship to us “which, in my kindness,” < he
says >, “1 allowed you to make your own by my coming,” as the scripture
says, “He gave them power to become sons of God.” 100

34,8 Thus he himself took the form of a servant when he came among
them, and partook of something recent in latter days (i.e., Christ’s human
nature), though what was ancient (i.e., Christ’s divine nature) remained
as it was and did not change in order to be mixed [with anything new].
The sons of men were changed to incorruption by participation in God,
but not united with him in co-essentiality; and he who took the form of a
servant indicated his recency by the word, "took,” but did not undergo a
change, as is shown by “being in the form of God.” 101 (9) Since these things
are so, and are wisely confessed, with full knowledge, by those whom
God has taught, neither “my God and your God” nor “my Father and your
Father” will express any difference from the rightful common possession
of the pure divine essence, < or > from the transcendence of the Father’s
union with the Son, and the Son’s, and likewise the Holy Spirit’s, with the
Father.

98 Cf. Matt 16:17.

99 John 20:31.

100 John 1:12.

101 Phil 2:6-7.

ANOMOEANS

551

35.1 18. If the ingenerate essence is superior, and innately superior, it is
ingenerate essence per se. For it is not superior to generation deliberately
because it so wills, but because this is its nature. Since ingenerate nature per
se is God, it allows no reasoning to think of generation in connection with it,
and resists all examination and reasoning on the part of generate beings.

35.2 Refutation. Aetius has involved me with the same bothers and, as
I said, got me to repeat myself even frequently, because of his repetition,
from beginning to end, of the same remarks about the same things. (3) The
faith which saves every faithful person has never consisted of the specula-
tion of human reasoning; human ideas are fallible, and cannot attain to
the boundlessness of the essence of God. (4) Indeed, the whole of our sal-
vation, the life-giving mystery of Christ, is “to the Jews a stumbling block,
to Greeks foolishness. But to us who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of
God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 102

35,5 Well then, wouldn’t one class Aetius with the Jews because of the
stumbling block of his syllogisms, but < regard > him as Greek because, in
his own would-be wisdom, he considers God’s truth foolishness? (6) For
though the creator and artificer of all < is > one and is greater than all cre-
ation and handiwork, this does not mean that, because he is greater than
his creatures, he does not make and create his creatures; he is not envious
of his own goodness. For he is possessed of absolute goodness in his own
right, and this is greater than all. He is not the victim of emotions, and it
was not from envy or jealousy that he made what is out of what is not.

35,7 For he did not intend the things which he made, but which are infe-
rior to his incomparable Godhead, to his own disadvantage, < making* >
his creatures < to his own harm* >. He made them for his glory to manifest
his own generous Godhead, for he is absolute goodness and self-existence 103
and imparts being to all the beings he has created from non-being because
he wills them — each creature in proportion — to share the gift of each
thing. (8) To the luminaries he has granted light, to the sky the beauties of
orderly arrangement, and portions of excellence to the earth and the rest,
in accordance with his will. And on the angels themselves, and on other
holy hosts, he has bestowed the gift of immortality; and on man he has
bestowed the dignity of his image, and the gracious gift of life, knowledge

102 1 Cor 1:23-25.

103 This, and the other nouns beginning with amo, suggest that Epiphanius read
auxoouaia at 35,1.

552

ANOMOEANS

and rationality. (9) And it was not only after hesitation, as one might say,
that this came to him, by consent, or after a wait or a change of mind or
on reflection, but of his absolute goodness. For his nature, in his absolute
goodness, is to have, to make, and to complete all things in a way that is
becoming to himself.

35,10 Thus, as God procured nothing unbecoming his goodness < in >
this, but glory and the knowledge of an awesome bounty, so there is no
additional glory for his Godhead when he becomes known and perceived
by his creatures. (11) The Godhead is never in need of an addition of glory.
< It is > absolute glory, absolute excellence, absolute wonder and absolute
praise, because the Father begot a Son though he himself was not begot-
ten, < and the Son was begotten > to be with the Father as an eternal Well-
spring of an everlasting Wellspring — stemming from him as Wellspring of
Wellspring, God of God and light of light, with no beginning, not in time,
but truly having a Father, while at the same time the Father truly has a
Son not unbecoming to his Father, and without prejudice to the Father’s
incomparability. (12) For he is not a physical contraction but a subsistent
Word, a Son of a Father, spirit of spirit and God of God. He excludes every
speculation of logic, but is for the salvation of the faithful and of all that
are made, through him and by him, by the Father, and who believe and
know, and do not regard the power of God as foolishness — and do not
regard the wisdom of God as foolishness, since it transcends all examina-
tion and all reasoning, particularly mortal men’s, as Aetius himself has
unwillingly admitted.

36.1 19. If “ingenerate,” when applied, to God, connotes privation but
“ingenerate" must be nothing, what reasoning can take away nothing from
a non-existent thing? But if it means something that is, who can separate
God from being, that is, separate him from himself?

36.2 Refutation. Aetius tells me the things the pagan controversialists
say about “privation” as though he were discussing this with reference
to the knowledge of God and < for a profitable purpose >, but without
knowing, to start with, the cases in which “privation” is understood by
the pagans. (3) Dialectic does not agree that “privation” can be spo-
ken of with regard to everything, but only with regard to those things
which possess something by nature. For, [Aetius to the] contrary, one
speaks of “privation” < in the cases of > things which admit of the cessa-
tion the things they have by nature; one does not say it of things which
do not.

36,4 Thus one cannot say “blind” of a stone. A person who is sighted
by nature and then loses his sight, is called blind. But surely if a bird, a

ANOMOEANS

553

man, or < any > beast whose nature is to see — when it is deprived of sight,
it is called “blind” in the sense of a privation. (5) Similarly we cannot say
“even-tempered” of < a stone >, or “harmless” or “ungrudging;” this is not a
stone’s nature. But of a man, or a beast with an irritable nature, one would
speak of privation when it is not angry — but never in the case of things
which cannot be angry.

36,6 I must apply this to God too, as though I were directing the argu-
ment at Aetius and cross-examining him. “Tell me, Aetius, do you know
that God cannot be compared with all the things that are not of the same
essence as his? Or would you even dare to count him as one of them all?

(7) And if you would count him < with > all the things that are not of his
essence, but which he has made from nothing through the Son who is
begotten of his essence — [with all things, that is], with the sole excep-
tion of him (i.e., the Son) and the Holy Spirit, who is of the essence of
the incomparable Father and his only-begotten Son — [if that is what you
think of him], your confession of faith must be absurd in the extreme.

(8) How can He by whom all things have been made from nothing, still be
one of all things? This is impossible, and not even you would say it.

“But since he cannot possibly be like, or the same as, the beings
which were made by him from nothing, he cannot possibly suffer like
the beings which are unlike him — for whose emergence from non-being
he is responsible, and all of whose qualities result from the privation of
their opposites, (g) For some of them are sighted, not of themselves —
(for they do not have being of themselves, but by the generous grace of
its Giver) — and suffering may < be caused > in these by the privation of
things which they had by the gift of the Giver. He, [meanwhile], is impas-
sible and has his being from no one, and cannot be deprived, < like > the
creatures which are made from nothing.

36,10 “Thus, if neither the Son, the Father nor the Holy Spirit is the
same as they, but the Son is different from them and is not called by the
same name, but has a special, incomparable name because < he is > abso-
lute good and the Son of Absolute Good — [if all this is so], what can he
have to do with privation < when* > there are < no* > opposites in < his
nature* >?” (11) There is no need for Aetius’ argument to tell me about
privation, for it is not by the privation which is characteristic of creatures
that the ingenerate God and his generate Son have their superior rank,
but because of its natural and special appropriateness in itself to their
being and Godhead.

So with God’s freedom from anger. This is not because he is < not >
angry, but because he is absolute freedom from anger. And the reason he

554

ANOMOEANS

is “ingenerate” is his absolute < in >generacy, even if the Son is generated
from the Ingenerate. For talk of privation in the sense intended by the
person suggesting [it] has no relevance to Him who is not comparable
to the other beings. (12) For neither can the others be equated with the
Generate, nor does the Ingenerate impart co-essentiality [with himself] to
creatures. This is not because impossibility is an attribute of the Mighty
[God], but because, due to the unique nature of the one God, and his
only-begotten Son with the Holy Spirit, impossibilities do not apply to
the Mighty [God].

37.1 20. If the “privations" of states are the removals of them, “ingenerate”
as applied to God is either the privation of a state, or a state of privation. But
if “ingenerate” is the privation of a state, how can something God does not
have be counted as one of his attributes’? If “ingenerate" is a state, however,
a generate essence must be assumed to precede it, so that it may acquire
[a new] state and be called “ingenerate.” If, however, the generate essence
partook of an ingenerate essence [to begin with], it has been deprived of its
generation by sustaining the loss of a state.

Generacy must then be an essence but ingeneracy a state. But if “offspring”
implies a coming to be it is plain that the word means a state, whether the
Offspring is made out of some essence, or whether it is what it is called, an
“Offspring."

37.2 Refutation. By already fighting fiercely, on the subject of priva-
tion, on the side of those who are strange to the faith, Aetius too has
armed himself against the faith with the same weapons as they. But he
says nothing that is based on the faith, and has not remembered what
was said to those who say foolish things of their own invention and
do not hold the Head of the faith — as the word says in refutation of
them, “I said in my astonishment, All men are liars,” 104 after “I am deeply
humbled.” 105

37.3 Now, however, he again spends his time on the same things, and
cites the rubbish of the terms, “privation” and “state,” and the reason-
ings of shaky human speculation. And though he is spiritually discerned
he takes no trouble to restrain the special onslaught of an < idea which
stems > from human villainy, because of which he < undertakes > to say
what he pleases about God. (4) Moreover, he once more obliges me to
dwell on the same things myself although I have discussed the topic of

104 Ps 115:2.

105 Ps 115:1.

ANOMOEANS

555

privation at length, and to spend my time in refutations of him. And the
previous refutation should be enough since, being equally weighty and
the same as his syllogistic argument, it can used against each one.

37,5 But we must not leave a hard-mouthed horse unbridled, whether
it is galloping toward a ditch or has already been checked in its career. Nor
may we give way to a man who is saying the same things against the faith,
and not reply to him. So I shall speak again < to the question of > (6) "If
the privations of states are the removals of them, ‘ingeneracy,’ as applied
to God is either the privation of a state or a state of privation” and, “If it is
the privation of a state, how can something God does not have be counted
as one of his attributes?”

37,7 And if < you pretend > to think of God in this way or that way,
Aetius, and guess at “states” with regard to God, you will be deprived of
your mind. No matter how many ideas about God enter your head to be
stored away there — except just to believe him, marvel at him, and glorify
him with all your heart! — you will be exposed as unable to out-argue God,
his Son or his Holy Spirit, so that God will convict you, and you will be
made a liar, as the scripture says. (8) There are states, wants and shaky
ideas in us, since that is our nature and essence. But we can also speak of
the nature and essence of God; and because we hear of God’s nature and
ours, and God’s essence and ours, this does not mean that we are to com-
pare the incomparable God with our nature, (g) And so with all that you
say about God, Aetius. The Godhead is perse transcendent, incomparable,
perfect in itself, with no need of anything; for it is absolute perception and
absolute will.

37,10 Thus God has not been deprived of his < own > essence by
incomparably begetting an incomparable only-begotten Son, nor < has
he deprived the Offspring >, whom he has begotten of him as the only
Offspring of an only Father, of his rank — nor the Holy Spirit. For the Off-
spring has no equality of nature, rank, or anything else with other beings,
(n) God has not deprived himself of his incomparable Godhead in state or
essence. Nor, as I said, has his Offspring been deprived of his Father’s rank
and his equality with the Father, (12) since it, like his Holy Spirit, cannot
be compared with anything at all.

In fact, it is a perfect Trinity: the Father perfect, the Son perfect, the
Holy Spirit perfect. It is not an identity and does not differ from itself
or have any subordination. (13) Otherwise what had been distinguished
would remove the Offspring’s incomparability, and what had been altered
would cause a deprivation of [its] being, for it would either be called [an
Offspring] in appearance and not in truth, or else it would be named by

556

ANOMOEANS

a mere word in passing, and not really exist. At any rate, this is the way
your idea is meant, Aetius, for it tries to exclude him from the definition
of faith, (r4) “He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that
he is a rewarder of them that seek him.” 106 And this cannot apply to the
Father alone, “for he that hath not the Son hath not the Father;” 107 and if
one speaks of the Son, he cannot do so “without the Holy Spirit.” 108

37, r5 For the Father is truly “true God,” 109 as the Son, who knows the
Father, testifies. And the Son, who is known and witnessed to by the
Father, is “true light.” 110 And the Spirit, who is not different [from God]
but proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son, is the “Spirit of
truth.” * * 111 (r6) But these truths put an end to all the syllogistic story-telling
of your words, Aetius, and I cannot be told to become a disciple of your
master Aristotle, and abandon < the teaching > of the fishermen who,
though “< un >learned and ignorant men,” 112 were enlightened in the Spirit
of God, and by God’s power were heralds of the truth as it was vouchsafed
them. For the kingdom of heaven is not in syllogistic speech and boastful
talk, but in power and truth. (17) Indeed I have heard enough, from the
beginning, of your argument about the privation of states and accidents,
and that generate essence does and doesn’t assume ingeneracy, and that
it sustains the loss of a state with a state, and the involvement of gener-
ate essence with a state which is, however, ingenerate; and the passing
mention of an “offspring,” though this means “only in the state [of being
an offspring]” and, because it has been remodeled from some essence or
other, indicate< s > a state, even though, as you have said, it is called an
offspring. (r8) For your sick fancy says < the > same things on the same
subjects, and never utters the last of its repetitions.

384 21. If “ingeneracy” is a state and “generacy” is a state, the essences
are prior to the states; but even though the states are secondary to the
essences, they are more important.

106 Heb 11:6.

107 John 2:23 (5:12).

108 1 Cor 12:3.

109 John 17:3.

110 1 John 2:8.

111 John 16:13.

112 Acts 4:13.

ANOMOEANS

557

38,2 Refutation. As you see, friends of the truth, Aetius is once more
attempting to form an argument that distinguishes states in God, and
states after God. And he puts some of them first, and others second.
(3) But it is not right to assume firsts of God, or speak of seconds. God
has all things at once and needs no additions. This is why pious reason
does not allow the Offspring to be conceived of as born at some time. (4)
< Nothing new* > co-exists with God the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit — that is, with the Trinity that Is. And so the God Who Is, is called
the Father Who Is, and the Son Who Is is with Him Who Is, begotten with-
out beginning and not in time. As the scripture says, “With thee is the well
of life,” and, “in thy light shall we see light”; 113 and “he who is in the bosom
of the Father”; 114 and “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
God.” 115 And it says likewise of the Holy Spirit, “My Spirit is in the midst of
you.” 116 (5) And you see that there is nothing new in the Trinity. Therefore
there is neither essence before state, nor state before essence.

38,6 And even if you make us say “state” of God, Aetius, we do not
mean the precarious states, subject to change, which are in all the things
that have non-essential states; and we do not mean anything in God that
is more honorable [than He], or of later origin [than He]. We mean every-
thing that, for his glory, is suitable to his rank; one glory and one honor
to the one Godhead, “that they may honor the Son as they honor the
Father,” 117 (7) and not blaspheme the Holy Spirit — because of the threat
that does not forgive their sin either here or in the world to come. Noth-
ing different [from this] can fitly be understood, worshiped or glorified in
connection with the Trinity. We speak of, and truly glorify a Father in the
Father, a Son in the Son, and a < Holy Spirit > in the Holy Spirit, just as
the true faith fitly < requires > that we accord worshipful reverence to the
one Trinity, and know its rank. (8) And the Ingenerate does not need the
Generate to contribute to its essence, making the Generate the cause of
its essence < because > Generate denotes < an essence >. And the essence
of the Begotten neither is, nor is called, a state of the Unbegotten.

38,9 For the Trinity is in need of nothing and receives no increment.
Though the Trinity was always itself and no creature, this does not mean
that it was by random chance, or for the honor of an additional title or
an increase in dignity, that the Father thought of creating heaven, earth

113 Ps 35:10.

114 John 1:18.

115 John 1:1.

116 Hag 2:15.

117 John 5:23.

558

ANOMOEANS

and all things visible and invisible through the Son, and stablishing the
whole host of those very creatures of his by his Spirit — to gain the addi-
tional tribute of being called Creator and Artificer from the creation of
the creatures and the making of creation, < and > of being perceived as
Father besides, by the Son through whom and by whom the creatures
had been made, and by the Holy Spirit in whom what was stablished had
been stablished. (10) For God did not make his handiwork because he was
changed from state to state and altered in his nature and essence, < or > as
though by reflection and a changeable < mind >. He had eternal creativity
and perfection in himself and needs no increment of glory. (11) And as
no creature may conceive of an additional state in God and suppose that
this is required by God’s dignity, essence and glory, so Aetius, who wants
to out-argue God about “ingenerate,” “generate,” and his argument about
God’s state and essence, will be stopped short. For it is agreed that all
created things genuinely exist, and have not been contrived as an addi-
tion of glory to a God who needs none — just as we may not say that the
Only-begotten and his Holy Spirit are the same as God’s creatures, for this
is not acceptable.

38,12 But since Aetius, with his chatter about high things and his impu-
dent reaching towards the heavens, has come to me with syllogisms but
draws his analogies from the creatures below, it will be found that he
himself < has accomplished* > nothing < worthwhile* > with his logical
arguments. For the wisdom of men passes away, and men’s syllogisms
are buried [with them]; “His spirit shall come forth and turn him to his
dust.” 118 (13) For all human argumentations are transitory and humankind
will pass away, together with the artful reasoning about the faith of Aetius
< and persons like himself >. But as the scripture says, the faith, hope and
the love which he has despised 119 abide.

39,1 22. If every essence is ingenerate Like Almighty God’s, how can one
say that one essence is subject to vicissitudes while another is not? But if the
one essence remains above quantity and quality and, in a word, all sorts of
change because of its classification as ingenerate, while the other is subject
to vicissitudes < and yet > is admitted to have something unchangeable in its
essence, we ought to attribute the characteristics of these essences to chance,

118 Ps 103:2.

119 Holl and MSS in auxoO auXXoyiCTTixv) mam;. We conjecture ini au-rou
xaxtx7tE(ppovr]p£vy].

ANOMOEANS

559

or, as is at any rate LogicaL, call the active essence ingenerate but the essence
which is changed, generate.

39.2 Refutation. I deny that every being is unbegotten, 120 or that every
being is begotten of God. The God who has begotten the Son who has
been begotten of him, and who has sent his Holy Spirit forth from himself,
did not beget all beings. He begot One, who is therefore only-begotten;
and he sent one Spirit forth from himself, who is therefore a Holy Spirit.
But he created all beings through the One, and stablished them in the
One, and some of them beget after their creation and are begotten, while
some have been created, but neither beget nor are begotten.

39.3 But the uncreated being of the Trinity is far different from the
beings that have been created, and not begotten, by the Trinity. (4) And
so the Trinity is impassible and changeless, but all things after the Trinity
< are > subject to suffering — unless the Impassible should grant impassi-
bility by virtue of immortality, granting this as a generous gift to whom it
will. They, however, do not have impassibility by virtue of an incorporeal
nature, but by the generosity of the good and impassible God.

39,5 F° r not even the Only-begotten procures suffering in the flesh
for his Godhead — although it is believed, by a true confession that stems
from the true faith, that he suffered in the flesh although he was the
impassible divine Word. But in his impassibility he remained the same,
with no change or alteration of nature. (6) Therefore, since he was wis-
dom and impassible God, and knew that by suffering he would save those
who are subject to the pain of death, he did not send “a messenger or an
angel,” 121 or < anyone > further like the prophets before him, but came
himself as Lord, assumed passibility and truly suffered, though his divine
nature remained impassible.

39,7 For the incarnation did not weaken the power of his Godhead.
We find him in his Godhead doing the works of God, and not prevented
by flesh. He rebukes the wind, storm and sea, calls Lazarus by his sov-
ereign authority, and does innumerable other things and more. (8) But
he also allowed the flesh such things as were suitable — allowed the devil
to tempt him, for example, men to strike him, the authorities to arrest
him — so that the Impassible would suffer in his passible nature, but
remain impassible in his proper Godhead, (g) For he is not different from
the impassible God, but does all things willingly in accordance with his

120 The context shows that Epiphanius understands dyEWV]TOV here.

121 Cf. Isa 63:9.

560

ANOMOEANS

awesome mystery — just as the Father contains all things, who is God with
the Only-begotten himself and his Floly Spirit, one forever perfect Trinity
and one impassible Godhead. I le is one God and one sovereignty, for the
same God contains all.

39,10 And his containing of all things does not make him passible,
although the things he contains are subject to suffering. For God is within
all and without all, not mingled with any. (11) And though God is every-
where, is without all things and contains all things, and all things are
moved within him, they will not bring suffering on the impassible God —
just as, < though > he has begotten the Only-begotten, or < because > the
Only-begotten has been begotten, or though God’s Holy Spirit has been
sent forth, this will not bring suffering on the Holy Trinity. (12) For neither
is the Holy Spirit passible, even though he descended to the Jordan in the
form of a dove. Nor is the Only-begotten passible, even though he was
baptized and touched by John; nor the Father, even though he cried from
heaven in a voice audible to men, “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him.” 122
(13) The Son, then, is immutable. And the Father is unbegotten, while the
Son is begotten < but > impassible. And the Holy Spirit, who came forth,
is also < impassible >. But all other things are creatures. The Holy Trinity,
< however >, retains its quantity and uncreated name, with no change in
the Supreme Being and no liability to suffering on the part of the Begot-
ten, for neither does the Begetter suffer.

For the Offspring is not corporeal, but spirit [begotten] of spirit and Son
of Father. (14) And the Spirit is likewise “of him,” Spirit of the Father, Spirit
of Christ, not created, not begotten, not their kinsman, not their ancestor,
not their scion. For the incomparable being of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit surpasses all conception and all understanding, to speak not
only of men, but of angels. (15) Neither the Only-begotten, nor his Father,
nor his Holy Spirit underwent any change because the Only-begotten suf-
fered in the flesh despite his impassibility, his Holy Spirit < descended > in
the form of a dove, and the Father impassibly uttered a cry from heaven in
the hearing of men. (16) Just so the angels when they were created, and the
heavens, the earth and all things, underwent no change and suffering at the
hands of their maker. The whole is an awesome mystery as the scripture
says, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” 123

122 Matt 3:17; 17:5.

123 Rom 11:33.

ANOMOEANS

561

40.1 23. Iftke ingenerate nature is the cause of the nature that has come
to be, and yet “ingenerate” is nothing, how can nothing be the cause of a
thing that has come to be’?

40.2 Refutation. The ingenerate nature has a < causal > relationship in
a different sense — not in the sense in which it is causally related to all
things — to its only-begotten Offspring and the Holy Spirit who proceeds
from it. But it is not causally related to them in the way in which that
which exists is causally related to that which does not. For the Begotten is
not begotten of nothing, and neither the Begetter nor the Holy Spirit who
proceeds from him are non-existents — on the contrary, the Existent is the
cause of the rest. (3) Therefore the holy Trinity co-exists in its own eternal
glory, forever in an existence proportionate to each name for its rank. For
the things which have been made from nothing, have been made by the
Trinity, and not by anything external to it.

Therefore not even the Father is the cause of created things by himself,
but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made all things. (4) If the Son were
different [from the Father], as though he <had been made > from noth-
ing by a cause, he would have come forth along with everything else, and
would himself have been the same < as they >. And God would have not
been the cause by generation of the Son who had been brought forth, but
would have been his cause by creation. And it could not be admissible
that the one be called an offspring and the others creatures, but all should
be called offspring along with him, or he should be called a creature like
all the rest. And nothing would be exceptional (5) since, in that they were
created from nothing, the One would be equivalent to all. I should say that
not just angels would be equal to their maker and only-begotten creator,
but men and cattle, and everything else that is infinitely inferior to his
nature and rank.

40,6 < However >, He Who Is < forever > co-exists with Him Who Is
Truly Begotten of him, though not in time — not [made] from nothing,
but [begotten] of him. (7) And his Holy Spirit, which is in being, does
not differ from his essence, and is not provided to God as though for his
assistance, which is what Aetius says.

41,1 24. If “ingenerate" is a privation but a privation is the Loss of a state,
and if a “Loss” is completely destroyed or changed to something else, how can
the essence of God be named after a changing or vanishing state by the title
of “ingenerate?”

4r,2 Refutation. If the opinion of God which is to be derived from
your syllogisms has been provided for God’s glory only in your time — as
your words above suggest — I too shall direct the same sort of remarks

562

ANOMOEANS

to you with God’s permission, and address you myself. For since none
of the ancient apostles or prophets in the Old and New Testaments held
this opinion, you are asserting your superiority to God himself, and your
unshakeability. (3) According to what you say, only in your time did
the Godhead acquire this syllogistic subtlety of yours for its creed — this
speaking about the privation of the ingenerate and generate, about the
complete loss of a state and its change, and the naming of God with a
word for the divine essence.

41.4 Since God is the creator of all things after his Only-begotten and
Floly Spirit, there cannot be any privation of things which are not his attri-
butes. Nor has the affirmation of attributes been acquired, so that his later
creations add something better to God, and his purity can be conceived of
through its ability to be deprived of that in favor of this as well as through
its changelessness. (5) The Godhead, however, is forever the same, and
though it is wholly glory, and wholly incomprehensible by all its creatures,
it is glorified by all, in accordance with the capacity of those who exert
themselves in its praise. By the angels it is glorified in the tongue of angels,
which the apostle declares to be preferable to men’s. < But by men > it
is glorified in the tongue of men, which is of an inferior capacity; < by
the other creatures* >, in accordance with their still more inferior ability.
(6) And God’s glory has by no means been lessened or changed because
God < is glorified > in each creature proportionately to < its ability >. It is
unchangeable in itself, while all creation, in addition to its endless exer-
tion of itself in praise, suffers deprivation; but the Supreme Being forever
surpasses all understanding, and is neither changed, altered nor improved
by the things everyone says are permitted to it. For the same Godhead is
superior, incomparable and glorified.

42.4 If you worship the Father only in name, you have given him the
honor deceitfully. And if you worship the Son while recognizing that he
is unlike the Father, you have introduced confusion into the worship by
honoring unlike equally with unlike. (5) If, however, you deny the Son
worship from the prejudice of your unbelief, you will be reproved by all
for failing to recognize Him who is rightly worshiped by all, and who is
equal [to the Father]. “For all the angels of God shall worship him,” 124 and
Mary and all his disciples worshiped him when he had risen gloriously in
the flesh. (6) For they knew that he does not have the title of "born” or
“created” < but > is begotten of the Father; and they worship him as the

124 Heb. 1:6 (Ps. 96:7).

ANOMOEANS

563

real God [begotten of] the real God, and worship the Holy Spirit, who is
of him.

42,7 For they know that he differs in essence from creatures; he is not
born or created, but begotten of the Father. And so, Aetius, after laboring
over everything, spending a great deal of time, and introducing strange
terms, < in the end you too* > will worship him. 125 (8) "For we must all
stand before the judgment seat,” 126 and “every tongue will confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord” — Jesus Christ, who is not different from God but “to
the glory of God the Father,” 127 as scripture says and as we believe.

43.1 26. If, as applied to God, “ ingenerate ” is a mere name, but the mere
expression elevates the being of God over against all generate things, then
the human expression is worth more than the being of the Almighty, since it
is has embellished God the Almighty with incomparable superiority.

43.2 Refutation. “Ingeneracy” is not a mere name when applied to God,
and does not have any relationship of essence with created things. Thus
“created things” is not a mere name either. But since another name in
between “ingenerate” and “created” is needed, and this name is “Son” —

< generate > and yet not created — which name shall we make the excep-
tion (i.e., exceptional in being a “mere” name, though the other two names
represent reality)?

43.3 And if we grant that, [as Aetius says], created things are related
[to the Son], then, since neither of the things we are mentioning (i.e.,
“creatures” and “Son”) is spoken of with a mere name, (4) mere naming is
not allowable in the case of the Generate and Son, just as mere naming is
not allowable in the case of the Ingenerate and Creator, and in the case
of created things. Aetius’ senseless quibble will therefore show confusion
in his reasoning, since, because created < nature > exists in reality and not

< by > the mere naming of it, created beings cannot be equated with the
name of “Son.” For the Son himself does not permit the naming of “Son”
to be the naming of a mere name.

43,5 But since the non-existent is not real, and the Son is not called
“only-begotten” as a mere name, he is united with the Father’s glory and
is not to be mixed in with the category of creatures. (6) For the God-
head has no need of elevation, as though it did not exist. Nor does it need
exaltation, even though, by some ignorant people, it is not exalted. And

125 Holl <teXop xai cru> jrpoamivvjcxEi aurcp, Drexl, with MSS . . . xal Aiyoup ijEvoix;
TiapEvvpEyxai; ai)Tcj}.

126 2 Cor 5:10.

127 Phil 2:11.

564

ANOMOEANS

the being of the Godhead is not constituted by anyone’s verbal locution.
(7) No expression, of men or other creatures, can boast of winning glory
as though for a God who needs it, or of embellishing God almighty, the
God whom we worship, the God who is the master, creator and artificer of
the expression. (8) For it does not suppose that it surpasses him in glory
and is the beautiher of its own creator. Otherwise it would regard itself
as worshipful, and certainly not worship Him who is to be worshiped.
And your treatise, Aetius, starts a useless argument against all this to
no purpose.

44.1 27. If there is a cause to correspond with everything generate but the
ingenerate nature has no cause, “ingenerate" does not denote a cause but
means an entity.

44.2 Refutation. Everything generate indeed has a cause, and I do not
admit this as though I have learned it from you. The faith of the truth
foresees, confesses at the outset, and teaches that God has no cause at all,
and that he is uncompounded and entirely unequaled.

44.3 I myself, therefore, do not worship anything that is inferior to the
essence of God himself, since it is proper to accord divine honor only to
the Absolute — to the ingenerate Father, the Son [begotten] of him, and the
Holy Spirit [who proceeds] from the Father and through the Only-begotten,
since nothing in the Trinity is created and falls within the province of
causation. (4) For nothing in the Trinity is made from nothing, like other
things, which fall within the province of causation and have causes.

And so, since the Trinity is without such a cause, it has inerrantly taught
that it alone can be worshiped; for it alone is without a cause. (5) But all
other things must be categorized as caused. For they are things which
have been made and created, while the Father is uncreated, and he has a
Son who is begotten of him but not created, and a Holy Spirit who pro-
ceeds from him and yet is not his handiwork.

44,6 Since this is the case the Son, who is worshiped, has not inherited 128
the suffering of his cause even though, in the Father, he has a Begetter.
And neither has the Holy Spirit. And other things, the creatures, cannot
be the cause of any inheritance without suffering [themselves], since they
are created by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (7) But the Only-
begotten — and his Holy Spirit — can plainly be the cause of inheritance

128 mxSop XExX^pcoxai afriou. This is either a misunderstanding by Epiphanius of Aetius’
vocabulary, or a simple association of ideas. The reference is to Aetius 27 which begins el
navr'i YEvvvjTcp ama auyxExX^pwTai.

ANOMOEANS

565

without suffering [themselves], for the Son is not a creature but an off-
spring and, since he has been begotten, will not inherit the causation of
suffering. Neither will the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father.
(8) For neither can the Father be classed as one who suffers in causing
things because he has begotten [the Son], has sent the Holy Spirit forth
from himself, and has created all the rest after the Son and the Spirit —
though surely, all other things suffer in creating and begetting, (g) There-
fore the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are uncaused; but the Trinity
is the cause of all things, for it creates and fashions them jointly, mean-
while knowing that nothing within it is created or fashioned.

45.1 28. If -whatever is made, is made by something, but ingenerate being
is made neither by itself nor by something else, “ingenerate” must denote
essence.

45.2 Refutation. To appear to be the inventor of a dialectical argument
Aetius has come at me with this too, as though he were telling me some-
thing new and unheard of. There is simply no need for him to prove this
particular thing. It is not in dispute, < its* > perennial < obviousness is not
in contradiction* > to the truth, and it is confessed in the catholic church.
(3) For “<If> whatever is made, is made by something else, but ingen-
erate being is made neither by itself nor by something else, ‘ingenerate’
must denote an essence.” (4) What is more cogent than this? For Aetius
has turned round and selected the term, “essence,” which < is > regularly
< rejected > by the Anomoeans themselves and the Arians, since he is
plainly compelled by the truth to acknowledge it.

45,5 Ingeneracy, then, is an essence, and has generated the Only-
begotten without defilement and without suffering, not in time and with-
out beginning, not from non-existence but from itself. It has also sent the
Holy Spirit forth, from itself and not from non-being. Therefore the holy
Trinity is plainly declared co-essential by the orthodox teaching in the
catholic church. But no created thing can be so termed, since neither by
nature nor in divine majesty is it like the Only-begotten and the Holy
Spirit. (6) Such things are created from nothing and cannot be worshiped,
but the Trinity is eternal — the Father a perfect Father, the Son a perfect
Son begotten of the Father, and the Spirit a perfect Spirit, proceeding
from the Father and receiving of the Son. (7) And everything in the sacred
scripture and the holy faith is crystal clear to us, and nothing is tortuous,
contradictory or knotty.

46,1 2g. If the ingenerate being is implicitly indicated to be the cause of
the Offspring’s existence and, in contrast with every [other] cause, is invari-
able, it is incomparable essence in itself [and] its matchlessness is not implied

566

ANOMOEANS

for any reason external to itself but because, being ingenerate, it is incompa-
rable and matchless in itself

46,2 Refutation. Aetius attacks the same points many times, as I myself
have said many times, and merely burdens me and nothing more. In the
present instance I have had to add to my burden and repeat the same
points to the same people, since Aetius has seen fit to do this. (3) For if the
ingenerate being that begot is implied by the being of < the > offspring,
the Begetter will not differ in rank from the Begotten < because of > beget-
ting him. For he begot him of himself as an essence — spirit of spirit, and
not body of body. Therefore the Begetter is implied to be incomparably
well suited to the Begotten, and the Begotten to the Begetter. (4) For the
Godhead needs no increment, or it would be called Father at one time
but not at another. And neither can the Son be found < released* > from
the heavenly bond (i.e., of the Trinity) by not being a Son at one time, but
being a Son now. Thus God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is of
the same essence and not of different essences. 129 (5) For God is neither a
kinsman nor a late arrival, but < a co-essential* Trinity >, with the name,
“Father,” ineffably well suited to the Son who is co-essential with him;
and his Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son and
< receives > what is the Son’s, suitable to the Father and the Son.

46,6 Incomparability with all the creatures which are inferior to the
Trinity and which have been created by the Trinity itself, is therefore char-
acteristic of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the Trinity is not
incomparable with itself, for it is uncreated, ingenerate and matchless.

(7) Hence nothing can be equated with the Father, and nothing which
has been made from non-existence and not begotten [by him] can be
worshiped together with him. For he never said, "Sit thou on my right
hand,” 130 to a creature. Nor, surely, did the Unbegotten say of any crea-
ture, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” 131 “I am in the Father
and the Father in me,” 132 and, “No man knoweth the Father save the Son,
and the Son save the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” 133

(8) But he reveals him through the Holy Spirit, who knows, teaches and

129 So we render auirooucra and srspoouaia.

130 Ps 109:1

131 John 14:9.

132 John 14:10.

133 Matt 11:27.

ANOMOEANS

567

proclaims what is the Son’s in the world “and searcheth all things, even
the deep things of God.” 134

46, g This is why Christ said, “He that honoreth not the Son as he hono-
reth the Father, the wrath of God abideth on him.” 135 And he didn’t say,
“He that honoreth not angels as he honoreth the Father,” — or, in turn, “He
that honoreth the Son as well (as the Father)” — but, "He that honoreth not
the Son as he honoreth the Father.” And to show that the incomparability
and matchlessness of the Trinity is in the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, he likewise said, “It shall not be forgiven him that blasphemeth the
Spirit, neither here nor in the world to come.” 136

47.1 30. If the Almighty surpasses every nature, he surpasses it because
of his ingeneracy, and this is the very reason for the permanence of generate
things. But if“ingenerate ” does not denote an essence, how will the nature of
the generate things be preserved?

47.2 Refutation. It is fitting to state and confess, and so hold fast to the
doctrine that the Almighty, from whom the only-begotten divine Word and
his Holy Spirit have inexpressibly come forth to us, surpasses all nature.
(3) And therefore we surely do not acknowledge a creature as God, or we
would be made fools of. But we glorify the Trinity which surpasses every
nature, the Son with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, because of its ingen-
eracy and uncreatedness. (4) For since the Only-begotten and the Holy
Spirit are not of another nature but are God of God and light of light, the
Only-begotten too will be called, “Almighty,” together with the Almighty
Father, as the sacred scripture plainly says. (5) For the Only-Begotten’s
rank is not different from the Father’s, as the holy apostle expressly testi-
fies in the Holy Spirit when he says of the children of Israel, “of whom are
the worship and the covenant and whose are the fathers, of whom accord-
ing to the flesh is Christ, God above all, blessed for evermore, Amen.” 137

47,6 Therefore the Only-begotten is also fit for worship and is God,
the Holy Spirit is the divine Spirit, and there is no other God after the
holy Trinity. (7) Instead the Father is almighty and so is his only-begotten
Child, Jesus Christ, who is fit for the Father’s rank and is called the Father
of the world to come. 138 And he is also fit for his Holy Spirit, and the Trin-
ity is forever manifest and known in its uncreatedness. (8) Because of this

134 Cf. 1 Cor 2:10.

135 John 5:23; 3:36.

136 Matt 12:32.

137 Cf. Rom 9:4-5.

138 Isa 9:5 in some texts.

568

ANOMOEANS

Trinity there is causation in all created things, and this is indicative of the
perfect and incomparable essence — Father in Son, Son in Father with the
Holy Spirit — which has eternal permanence in itself. For created things
owe their preservation to this Trinity.

48.1 31. If no invisible thing preexists itself in germ, but each remains
in the nature allotted to it, how can the Ingenerate God, who is free from
any category, sometimes see his own essence in the Offspring as secondary
but sometimes see it in ingeneracy as prior, on the principle of “first and
second?”

48.2 Refutation. Aetius should give me warning of his questions in
advance and put them clearly — especially this expression < he introduces >,
(i.e., “in germ”) which is reprehensible and in no way akin to his illustra-
tions, since neither of the beings he has named can be equated with the
other. For he has come to me with the names of many invisible beings. 139

48.3 There are the spiritual invisible beasts, I mean the Seraphim and
Cherubim, as well as angels, which are "spirits,” 140 and certain others of
which it is true that nothing about them is “in germ.”

48.4 For no one would say that invisible things are bodies, for they
neither beget nor are begotten. Plainly, they were created in accordance
with the will of the everlasting Godhead. Each creature has been assigned
whatever virtue He Who Is has allotted it in the excellence of his generous
lovingkindness, and each has received its allotted portion and abides by
it. (5) And God is independent of all cause, contains all things, and does
not have his Son — or his Holy Spirit — with hesitation, or regretfully after
a lapse of time.

He has a Son in a way that befits the eternal possession of a Son
begotten — and only-begotten — with the Father always within him; and
he also has the Holy Spirit who is of the Father and receives of the Son,
and has him everlastingly.

48,6 For the abundance of the everlasting Godhead does not depend
on a lack of glory or the addition of glory. But while no creature is ever-
lasting, when did the Trinity see itself with its abundance lessened, and
see this at one time, but at another time see itself with an increase of
essence, as though it needed it — and at still another time see itself with a
further increase of glory or abundance after the creation of its creatures?
(7) And in sum, < the nonsense* > of those who choose to bring forward
and advance the speculations of human reasoning against the truth and

139 A sarcastic reference to the “invisible being” which “preexists itself in germ”.

140 Cf. Ps 103:4; Heb 1:7; 14.

ANOMOEANS

569

make them public, will do no harm. The rank of God, the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit, surpasses all the understanding of angels and greater
beings, let alone man’s.

For human reasonings of are of no value, and men’s thoughts are mortal
because they skewer themselves on syllogisms and disputations. (8) Thus
others have been condemned by their own arguments, and < have drawn
inferences > from some quibbling speculation, some, about the origin of
evil, others about the devil’s origin or why he was made, others about
God’s purpose in creating man such that he would sin, others about God’s
reason for accusing man later after making him like that, (g) [All this] to
learn, after ringing the changes on all their arguments, that they are mor-
tal, and to ascribe majesty and knowledge to the < God who is glorified* >
in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, to the one Trinity — (10)
after asking and receiving the knowledge of the true faith from him — and
not to try to overstep their bounds. Instead they will learn to desist from
blind reasoning, and not talk cleverly with their wagging tongues and fool-
ish arguments, but be circumspect at the wise command of the holy and
divine scripture which says “not to think more highly than they ought to
think, but to think soberly.” 141

49.1 32. If God retains an ingenerate nature, there can be no question of
his knowing himself as [both] originated and unoriginated. If on the other
hand, we grant that his essence continues to be ingenerate and generate, he
does not know his own essence, since his head is in a whirl from origination
and non-origination. But if the Generate too partakes of ingenerate nature
and yet remains without cessation in his generate nature, he knows himself
in the nature in which he continues to remain, but plainly does not know his
participation in ingeneracy; for he cannot possibly be aware of himself as
both of ingenerate and generate essence.

If, however, the Generate is contemptible because of its proneness to
change, then unchangeable essence is a natural rank, since the essence of
the Ingenerate admittedly transcends every cause.

49.2 Refutation. There is no doubt that God retains an ingenerate
nature since he has created and made all things from nothing — the Father
< who > begot from himself a Son who is co-essential with him and fit for
his eternity, and [produced] the Holy Spirit who came forth from him
with the suitability for co-essentiality with him. (3) And although the
Trinity created all things, visible and invisible, from nothing, this does
not mean that that which corresponds with God’s rank, the eternity of

141 Rom 12:3.

570

ANOMOEANS

Him Who Is, is denied by the recent origin of the name of the creatures.
(4) But the supreme essence on high is denied to the creatures, since it is
not co-essential with them, but called them out of non-being into being.

Thus the Son, who has not been begotten of non-being but of Him Who
Is, may properly be contemplated together [with God], for [God’s] essence
neither stretched nor shrank [in begetting him]. The Father, who is spirit,
truly begot his Son as spirit, and produced the Holy Spirit from himself —
and is neither unknowing of himself, nor aware of a shrinkage, a broad-
ening or a division of his essence. (5) It makes no sense that God should
not know all these [latter] things < of himself >, just as it is unaccountable
that < the Son and the Spirit* > — that is, the Holy Spirit < that searches
the depths of God* > — should not know the Godhead.

And the Ingenerate does not fail to share co-essentiality with his Off-
spring, nor the Generate to be eternal with the Father. (6) For the Father
knows the Son and the Son knows the Father, since the Trinity remains
endlessly uncreated and the Only-begotten is endless, for he is begotten of
Him Who forever Is, and in his own perfect nature, himself truly Is. (7) He
therefore knows himself. And neither is the Son ignorant of the ingenerate
essence of the Father, nor the Ingenerate of the essence of the Son, for the
only-begotten divine Word is worthy of credence when he says, “No man
knoweth the Father save the Son, and the Son save the Father.” 142

49,8 Therefore never mind the pronouncement of this great Aetius,
“He cannot possibly have knowledge of himself both as of ingenerate
and as of generate essence.” (9) The Only-begotten has already delivered
his verdict in the form that follows, by saying that he and no one else
knows the Father — (though at the same time he allows for the inclusion
of the Holy Spirit, as he says elsewhere, The Spirit of the Father shall
teach you.” 143 But if the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, he is not ignorant
of the Father either.) (10) But by saying, “No man knoweth the Father save
the Son,” 144 < the Son showed in the same breath* > that he always knows
the Father — showing his own matchlessness, and the Father’s and the
Holy Spirit’s matchlessness, in comparison with all other beings, which
are not eternal but have been made.

49,11 But if he has already < said > that he always knows the Father,
it is no use for Aetius to come tiptoeing in with his worthless teachings.
For it is clear to everyone that he plainly thinks in human terms, and

142 Matt 11:27.

143 Luke 12:12; Matt 10:20.

144 Matt 11:27.

ANOMOEANS

571

is condemned as fleshly and soulish by Him who knows himself, the
Father and his Holy Spirit. (12) The Godhead, then, is exempt from all
causation — not only the Father, but the Son and the Holy Spirit as well,
since all are agreed that the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit transcends every cause.

50.1 33. If the Ingenerate transcends all cause but there are many ingen-
erates, they will [all] be exactly alike in nature. For without being endowed
with some quality common [to all] while yet having some quality of its own —
[a condition not possible in ingenerate being] — one ingenerate nature would
not make, while another was made.

50.2 Refutation. Of course the Unbegotten transcends all cause, since
the Ingenerate is one and is an object of worship, but the object of wor-
ship is different from the worshipers. (3) But the Trinity is an object of
worship because it is a unity and a Trinity enumerated in one name,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And it includes nothing different from itself,
but the Father has fittingly begotten, and not created, a Son. (4) For the
Offspring is forever of the Begetter — as is the Holy Spirit who has come
forth from him — since the Offspring is the < Son > of Him Who Is. The
Trinity, then, exists in one uncreated unity, while all that has been created
from nothing is caused by the Trinity itself. (5) The one Trinity is therefore
one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, containing nothing different from
itself: uncreated, unbegotten, unfashioned, a Trinity which is not made
but makes, which includes the name of no creature but creates, which is
one and not many. (6) And although they are many, all things are caused
by it but are not enumerated with it.

Thus no share of the incomparable essence is allotted to any other
nature. (7) There is therefore no created nature in the essence of God;
God’s essence is creative of all that cannot participate by co-essentiality
in the incomparable — in the one essence of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. To one who has received the knowledge of the truth it is plain
that the divine nature reveals this to him, < since > it alone is worshiped
and not created things, just as it alone, and not created things, baptizes
in its own name.

51.1 34. If every essence is ingenerate, one will not differ from another in
self-determination. How, then, can we say that one [such] being is changed
and another causes change, when we will not allow God to bring them into
being from an essence that has no [prior] existence!

51.2 Refutation. Every opponent of the truth has gathered an amaz-
ing number of trivial sayings and expected to fall upon people, get them
upset, remove them from the way of life, and ruin them. Aetius expects

572

ANOMOEANS

to overawe the simple here although he is not really saying anything
with this proposition. For he says what he says unnecessarily, and has
employed the term, < “ingenerate” >, at this time, from his usual habit of
trotting it out for no good reason.

51.3 The ingeneracy of every essence is not acknowledged even by the
wise themselves, or every essence would be regarded as God. (4) But since
not all essences are treated as God, but one rather than all — the one God-
head in Trinity — how can this fine fellow still suppose that an awe of
him will overcome the sons of the truth? (5) One essence will differ from
another because the Trinity creates them; but all things are created by
the Trinity and it alone is self-determined, while all that it has made is
determined by it. The latter sort of essence is changeable but the Trinity’s
essence is changeless, though it is constantly changing the things that are
changed by it, and is able to bring their essences and subsistences out
of nothing. (6) For it is fitting that God should transform as he wills the
ordering of < the > things he has made, and has brought into being out of
non-being and nothing.

52.1 35. If every essence is ingenerate, every one is exactly alike. But the
doing and suffering of an essence that is exactly like [all the others] must
be attributed to chance. However, if there are many ingenerates which are
exactly alike, there can be no enumeration of their ways of differing from one
another. For there could be no enumerations of their differences, either in
general or in some respect, since every difference which implies classification
is already excluded from ingenerate nature.

52.2 Refutation. Not every essence is ingenerate. It is foolish to think
< this >, and whether Aetius intends it as a declaration or as a query, both
the argument and its statement belong to pagan ignorance. But plainly,
Aetius intends it as a query. (3) Then let him ask the pagans this, and let
them agree with him that this follows from their argument; for they give
the title, “matter,” to something that is contemporaneous with God. And
if Aetius agrees, let him get caught with them! The truth is that there is
one Maker, which consists of one essence of a perfect Trinity, < which is >,
and yet is not enumerated as an identity. But all other things are born and
created, and not ingenerate.

52.4 But the Godhead is uncreated, with the Father begetting, the Son
begotten, and the Holy Spirit sent forth from the Father himself and receiv-
ing of the Son, while all [other] things are created. Indistinguishability in
power is properly confined to the Trinity. And all Godhead is ascribed to
the Father because of the rightness and certainty of belief in one God, and
the refutability of belief in many. But the rightness of the Son is fittingly
reckoned in proportion to that of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

ANOMOEANS

573

52,5 This being so, the device of the query will fail of its treacherous
purpose from the start. There are not many indistinguishables; there is
one Trinity in unity, and one Godhead in Trinity. (6) But all other things
are separate, and their doing and suffering is not by chance. Nor can the
holy Trinity suffer in doing a thing; the whole — I mean the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit — is impassible and worshipful. (7) For God made all
things through a Son, but he did not make the Son — (the Son is not one
of all the creatures, for he assists the Father and is worshiped together
with him) — nor did he make the Holly Spirit. (The Holy Spirit is not one
of the totality of God’s creatures; he strengthens the power of all, and
he is worshiped.) (8) But all things are subject to the providence of the
One, and each one endures, acts, suffers and < does* > everything else < in
accordance with the will of the One* >.

Thus the one Trinity is indistinguishable from itself but the other
things, < which > it has made, are different from it. (g) It alone is eternal,
uncreated and unbegotten — though the Son is begotten independently
of time and without beginning, but ever existent and never ceasing to be.
(10) Thus for safety’s sake the word of God has taught that the Father is
the head — and yet not the beginning — of the Son, 145 because of their co-
essentiality. The Holy Spirit also, who has been sent forth from the Father,
is with the Father forever and has had no beginning in time.

53.1 36. If “ingenerate” and “God” are exact parallels and mean the same
thing, the Ingenerate begot an Ingenerate. But if “ingenerate” means one
thing while “God” means something else, there is nothing strange in God’s
begetting God, since one of the two receives being from ingenerate essence.
But if, as is the case, that which is before God is nothing, “ingenerate” and
“God” do mean the same, for “Offspring" does not admit of ingeneracy. Thus
the Offspring does not permit himself to be mentioned in the same breath
with his God and Father.

53.2 Refutation. How does Aetius want me to grasp the meaning of the
questions which are raised by his arguments? And if he says through argu-
ments and syllogisms, my speculation will fail just like his. (3) For no one
can ever out-argue God, nor, as the scripture says, “shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” 146 But by pious
reasoning and the right confirmation of it one must return, by means of
the holy scripture, to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

145 Cf. 1 Cor 11:3.

146 Rom 9:20.

574

ANOMOEANS

53,4 Now since an unalterable pronouncement teaches us that those
who worship a creature have been made fools, how can it not be < fool-
ish > to take a creature for God and worship and honor it, when faith by
its nature denies worship to the creature and the creature to worship.
(5) Indeed, there will be no advantage in Christianity if it is in no way dif-
ferent from those who give divine honor to the creature. Such faith will
be idolatry rather than piety.

53.6 For they too worship the sun, the moon and the heavenly bod-
ies, heaven and earth, and the other created things. And the superior-
ity of [certain] created things arouses no awe, and even if one creature
is outweighed by the other the special character [of one creature] will
not set it apart from the honor that is common to them all because of
their common name (i.e., “creature”). There is One who has made both
[of the creatures being compared], and has allotted each, not a difference
of name but a difference of essence.

53.7 For in the case of all created things the creature’s name is “servi-
tor,” not “free.” And if the servitor in any part [of creation] is worshiped,
the worship [of it] will be no different from [the worship of] any other
part, even if it is inferior. For it is the same as the most exalted part, by
its kinship with the creature which has been made to be, after non-being,
by Him Who Is.

53.8 “Ingenerate” is therefore a fit name for God, and “God” for the
ingenerate. Thus we do not call the Offspring a product or artifact, but an
offspring begotten essentially and without spot of the Father, co-essential
with the Father and fit to be worshiped with him. And neither do we call
the Holy Spirit, who is of him, different; he too is fit to be worshiped.
(9) But the word, “God,” is not uttered in the same breath with any other
being, a creature, since the creature has been made different from ingen-
eracy because it has been allotted being after non-being. The Trinity, how-
ever, is eternal, and “God” and “Ingenerate” are not different things.

53.10 But your admission, Aetius, that the Son has been begotten of
the Father, is deceptive and not sincere. Whatever is begotten is not cre-
ated, and whatever is created is not begotten. But if a begotten thing is
created, it is created in a different way, as, for example, men beget men
but do not create them, since they themselves have been created by God
on high. Thus the things they beget have been begotten by them, but all
things have been created by God.

53.11 Now since God is uncreated but has begotten — not created —
a Son, he begets nothing different from his own essence. How can his

ANOMOEANS

575

Offspring be created, then, when the Father is uncreated? If he calls the
Offspring a creature, it cannot be called an Offspring.

And there is a great deal to say against such an absurd speculation.
(12) But it does not become even God to be without a Son at one time,
and be called “Father” later, after [begetting] a Son. Nor is it becoming to
the Son that there be a time before him; if there is, the time will be greater
than his greatness. (13) But the perpetual possession of unfailingness and
eternity, in the identity of their qualities, is becoming to the Father. And
nothing was before God, this is plain. It can be shown, then, that “God”
and “Ingenerate” are the same, as Aetius has said; and in somehow impli-
cating these with each other Aetius accuses himself rather than proving
his point. (14) For if “God” is used together with God, as it is, “ingenerate”
is also an acceptable term for the “Begotten Son”; ingeneracy is implicit
in God. (15) The divine Word is mentioned in the same breath with the
Father because of his Godhead, uncreatedness, and joint honor with the
Father, even though this is of no help to Aetius; for all creatures worship
the Son, and “every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory
of God the Father,” 147 to whom be glory, the Father in the Son with the
Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

54.1 Aetius’ closing valediction

37. May the true God, who is ingenerate in himself 148 and for this rea-
son is alone addressed as “the only true God” by his messenger, Jesus Christ,
who truly came into being before the ages and is truly a generate entity,
preserve you, men and women, safe and sound, from impiety in Christ Jesus
our Savior, through whom be all glory to our God and Father, both now and
forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

54.2 Refutation. Even at the close of Aetius’ letter to his gang whom
he addressed as “male and female champions,” he did not desist from
this sort of verbal wickedness. In his valediction too he gave proof of the
strangeness of his doctrine. (3) For he says, “The true self-begotten God
preserve you safe and sound,” and without realizing that with one word he
has destroyed all the implications of his inquiry. Fie spoke of the “Ingen-
erate God” in the propositions above, but by introducing a “self-begotten
God” to us here he has made no allowance for < God’s uncausedness* >

147 Cf. Phil 2:11.

148 Wickham aiixo ayEvvvjToc;, Dummer auToaysvvrjTos, Holl and MSS aiiToyEwrjToc;. This
last cannot be what Aetius wrote, but is plainly what Epiphanius read.

576

ANOMOEANS

and the fact that he did not make himself. For every < evil > notion forgets
itself, the better to be detected.

54,4 Next he says, "he who for this reason is alone addressed as ‘the only
true God.’ ” But going by what Aetius says and thinks, he is either keeping
the Son from being “God,” and misrepresenting the name < because he
wants > to be called a Christian, or else he believes that the Son is God
but not a true one. And [in that case] he will have one true God, and one
who is not true. (5) And because Aetius finds one Person below another
in a descending order and assigns the Holy Spirit a still lower and inferior
rank — or again, will hold that the Spirit is a lesser “God” or not count
him as one of the Trinity — the pathetic object will be an entire stranger
to Christians. May he be denounced in the end as a complete pagan and
Sadducee, a stranger — as he is — to the Holy Spirit, and comparable to
the pagans in his lot. (6) For he claims that there is one greater and one
lesser God, one true God and one not true. The pagans confess that one
God is supreme but call the others lesser. But the sacred scripture plainly
confounds him. It says that the Father is “the true God”, 149 and likewise
says “God” of the Son 150 — and it says, "God is light,” 151 of the Father, and
“He was the true light” 152 of the Son. And of the Holy Spirit it says, “the
Spirit of truth.” 153 Thus the Trinity is truly proclaimed to us in “wisdom
and the depth of its riches.” 154

54.7 Next after this he even says, “by his messenger, Jesus Christ.” He
was not ashamed to regard the Only-begotten as unworthy of the name
of God, but employed the mere verbal title, just as, in the above proposi-
tions, he accorded the Son the honor of the divine name only verbally.

54.8 However, he says, “who truly came into being and is of a nature
truly generate,” but says, “He will keep you from impiety.” Any loose
woman attributes her behavior to others from the start. Not seeing how
great his impiety has been, he believes himself pious, as madmen suppose
themselves sane but the others crazy.

54.9 But here < in writing >, “in Christ Jesus,” he did not dare to acknowl-
edge him as “our Lord,” but deceptively called him “our Savior.” (10) And
he says, “through whom be all glory to < our God and > Father, now and

149 John 17:3.

150 1 John 1:5.

151 1 John 1:1.

152 John 1:9.

153 John 16:13.

154 Cf. Rom 11:33.

ANOMOEANS

577

forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.” Even “all glory” is meant to strip
the Son of honor and glory. May none of the pious, who have received the
gift of the true faith from the Holy Spirit, ever acquiesce in this!

54,11 But now that I have discussed all these things that Aetius has said
in thirty-six syllogistic propositions with a certain skill in debate and the
inferential guesswork of human trickery, (12) I urge you to read them 155
attentively, and you will know his earth-bound nonsense at once, Chris-
tian people, servants of Christ and sons of the truth, which has nothing to
do with the teaching of the Holy Spirit. (13) Aetius did not dare to mention
the word of God even in one paragraph, or any text of the Old or the New
Testament — not from the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels or the Apostles.
He did not dare quote a line of the patriarchs’, of the Savior himself; never
one of the Father’s, not one oracle of the Holy Spirit delivered through
apostles or prophets. He thus stands fully self-exposed, to the friends of
the truth, as an entire stranger to God and his faith.

54,14 I believe that I have opposed his propositions, as best I can even
in untrained speech, but that I have confronted him with proof from the
sacred scriptures, and from pious reason itself. (15) And since I have dis-
cussed the faith clearly enough in my refutations of him I feel that this
will do, so as not to create any further difficulty in reading by making
additions.

54.16 But once more, < 1 shall mention and indicate* > a few of the ideas
< he introduced* > in his vanity, after his foreign creed and his hatred of
Christ and his Holy Spirit, and take up, and briefly state and discuss, all
the < foolishness* > his mouth, and his disciples’ mouths, dared to utter in
his arrogant pride and inordinate blasphemy.

54.17 For with their idea of knowing God not by faith but by actual
knowledge, he and his disciples were the most deluded of all. 1 mentioned
somewhere above that they say they do not simply know God with the
knowledge of faith, but as one might know anything which is visible and
tangible. As one might pick up a rock or club, or a tool made of some
other material, so this good chap says, “1 know God as well as 1 know
myself, and do not know myself as well as 1 know God.”

54.18 But in the end, talking and hearing nonsense is a deception to
many, but a joke to the wise. For what person who has contracted insan-
ity and gone mad can fail to drive others mad, particularly his followers
and subjects? (19) Suppose someone demanded of him and his pupils,

155 Holl <auT>oti;, MSS 01?. Holts alternative suggestion is vuv teXoi; t(0e[tev tu Xoyu.

578

ANOMOEANS

“Don’t tell me that you know the incomparable, incomprehensible God,
whose form cannot be perceived, but who is known to his servants by
faith! Describe the foundations of the earth to me, the storehouses of the
abyss, the veins of the sea, the location of hades, the dimensions of the air,
the form and thickness of the heavens! Tell me what the top of the heav-
ens is, the bottom of the underworld, what is to the right, what is to the
left of creation! Tell me how you yourself were made, and the number and
dimensions of the innumerable things on earth!” (20) Then after hearing
this, as some of their dupes have told me, his disciples resort to quibbling
excuses and finally say deceitfully, “All these things are physical, and we
cannot know them. But we know clearly what sort of God made them,
how he is, what he is like, and who he is.”

54,21 But who can hear this without at once laughing at them? ft is
sheer foolishness to say that one knows, and has accurately described,
the incomparable, ineffable Artificer. And if only Aetius would say that he
knows and has described him by faith, and he and they would not venture
to say that they know him by a sort of direct knowledge! But the things the
incomparable God himself has made, and which, because of their innu-
merable < kinds* >, can < only* > be wondered at by those who see them,
he says that he and his followers do not know. (22) And most of all, the
sacred scriptures everywhere plainly declare that God is invisible, incom-
prehensible and beyond our understanding, but that it is known only by
faith “that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that love him.” 156

54,23 But when anyone with an orthodox view of God’s glory, faith,
love and incomprehensibility tells them, “We know that God is incom-
prehensible, we know that God is invisible, ineffable, but we know that,
in his invisibility and incomprehensibility, he actually is,” this exponent
of the new dialectic dares < to reply* > with light mockery, as though to
tell a story, (24) “What are you and your faith like? Like a deaf, dumb and
blind virgin who’s been violated. Everyone who knows her can see that
she has, but if they ask who her seducer is, she can’t hear to know they’re
asking. And she hasn’t seen her seducer because she’s blind, and can’t say
who he is because she’s dumb.”

54,25 Now the reverse is true of him and his story, for as the scripture
says, “His travail shall return on his own head, and he shall fall into the
pit which he hath made,” 157 and the like. (26) Aetius himself is like a man

156 Heb 11:6.

157 Ps 7:17; 16.

ANOMOEANS

579

who was born blind but can speak — indeed, speaks at length — and can
hear, and knows the names of white and black, hyacinth, light green, red
and the various other colors, and light and dark, and has been told their
names. But he surely has no knowledge of their appearance and cannot
possibly describe it, because he was born blind to begin with, and does
not know the variation and appearance of the qualities of the colors. (27)
The reality which answers to the distinction between each of their names
is experienced by visual perceptions, but never by verbal explanation to
one who does not know their appearance to start with, or by handling
and touch. (28) So when people who are blind from birth talk about them
and know enough to contrast black with white, and green with hyacinth,
purple, scarlet and the other colors, but we ask them the quality of their
appearance and the color of each quality, they cannot say, and cannot
learn it from us. They can only convince each other by talking, but they
deceive their hearers as though they know all about the distinction, even
though they are describing < the indescribable* > in words and are igno-
rant because of their inability to comprehend it.

54,29 Even so Aetius himself, who jokes about the seduction of the
deaf, dumb and blind virgin, has come to me to talk about God. In fact,
going by his blasphemy, it is he who has been spoiled, and his ignorance is
like blindness from birth, (30) because he talks about God but by describ-
ing < the indescribable > in words, and ends even by making his disciples
shameless.

For there is nothing that they do not dare. When they are under cross-
examination by someone and are hard pressed, they blaspheme the names
of prophets and apostles and leave at once, turning away with the words,
“The apostle said this as a man,” but sometimes, “Why quote the Old Tes-
tament to me?” (31) But this is no surprise in view of the Savior’s words, “If
they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more them
of his household.” 158 If they deny the Lord himself and his true glory, how
much more his prophets and apostles?

54,32 But his disciples have been inspired to still further madness, as
has their successor, a person miscalled Eunomius (i.e., “law-abiding”), who
is still alive to be a great evil, < and introduces* > another piece of impu-
dence. For he rebaptizes persons already baptized — not only people who
come to him from the orthodox and the sects, but even from the Arians.
(33) He, however, rebaptizes them in the name of God the Uncreated, and

158 Matt 10:25.

580

ANOMOEANS

in the name of the Created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit
created by the Created Son. (34) And to make it clear that it is no longer
faith which their whole workshop of jugglery, theater and farce proclaims,
but practically clowns’ work, some maintain that he baptizes his candi-
dates for rebaptism upside down, with their feet on top and their heads
below. (35) And while they are in this position he obliges them to swear
an oath that they will not abandon the sect he has cooked up. (36) But
they say that when this same Aetius had been recalled from exile after
Constantius’ death by Julian on his accession to the throne, and when he
was still a deacon in his sect, he was raised to the episcopate by a bishop
of his sect.

54,37 This is < the > information I have < about > Aetius and his dis-
ciples, to whom some have given the name of Anomoean because he has
come to an opinion still more frightful than the heresy of Arius. (38) With
God’s help I have gone through his doctrines in detail as best I can, as
though I had stamped on the serpent called the many-footed millipede,
or wood-louse, with the foot of the truth, and crushed it with the true
confession of the Only-begotten. Giving our accustomed thanks to God,
beloved, and summoning his power to the aid of our weakness, let us go
on to the remaining sects (39) to the best of my ability and understand-
ing, and call, as I said, on our Master himself, to come to my aid in the
exposure of the sects and the refutation of them, so that, by his power, I
may be able to keep the promise which, despite my unimportance and
mediocrity, I have made.

ANACEPHALAEOSIS VII

Here too are the contents of the second Section of this same Volume
Three. By the division of the Sections which we have been using, it is a
seventh Section. It is Section Seven and the end of the whole work, and
contains four Sects:

< 77 >. Dimoerites, also called Apollinarians, who do not confess that
Christ’s humanity is complete. Some of them at one time dared to say
that Christ’s body is co-essential with his Godhead, some denied that he
ever took a soul, but some, in reliance on the text, “The Word was made
flesh,” 1 denied that Christ received his fleshliness from created flesh, that
is, from Mary. They merely said contentiously that the Word was made
flesh; but after that they say, I do not know with what intent, that he has
not received a mind.

< 78 >. Antidicomarians, who say that the holy, ever-virgin Mary had
relations with Joseph after bearing the Savior.

< 79 >. Collyridians, who offer a loaf in the name of this same Mary on a
certain set day of the year. I have given them a name to correspond with
their practice, and called them Collyridians.

< 80 >. A group < called > Massalians, which means, “people who pray.”
Of the sects current among pagans, the following, called Euphemites, Mar-
tyrians and Satanists, are associated with them.

This is the summary of the seventh Section, and the end of the three
Volumes. There are eighty Sects in all. At the very end of the third Volume,
and after Section Seven, is the Faith of the Catholic Church, the Defense of
Truth, the Proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, and the Character of the
Catholic and Apostolic Church which has been in existence from all ages,
but which, in time, was made fully manifest by Christ’s incarnation.

John 1:14.

582

APOLLINARIANS

Against Dimoerites, called < Apollinarians >' by some, who do not confess
that Christ’s humanity is complete. 57, but 77 of the series

1,1 Though it is painful to me in the anticipation, directly after these
another doctrine different from the faith sprang up. 1 cannot tell with
what intent, but it was to make sure that the devil would not leave < the
church untroubled* >, for he is constantly disturbing the human race
and, as it were, warring on it, by putting his bitter poisons into its choice
foods. And as though he were dumping its bitterness into honey, < he is
introducing the heresy* > even through people who are admired for their
exemplary lives and always renowned for their orthodoxy. (2) For this is
the work of the devil, who envied our father Adam at the beginning and is
the enemy of all men — as certain wise men have said, envy is always the
opponent of great successes. 1 2 (3) And so, not to leave me and God’s holy
church untroubled but constantly in an uproar and under siege, the devil
planted certain occasions for [it] even through persons of importance.

1,4 For certain persons — people, indeed, who were originally ours, who
held high position, and who have always been esteemed by myself and all
orthodox believers, have seen fit to remove the mind from Christ’s human
nature and say that our Lord Christ took flesh and a soul at his coming,
but not a mind — that is, that he did not take full humanity. (5) 1 cannot
say how they have contributed to the world with this, or who of their pre-
decessors they learned it from — or what benefit they have derived from it
or conferred on me, on their hearers, and on God’s holy church, by causing
us nothing but disturbance and division among ourselves, and grief, and
the loss of our mutual affection and love. (6) For they have abandoned
the following and the righteousness of the sacred scriptures, and the
simple profession — the faith of the prophets, Gospels and apostles — and
introduced a sophistical, fictitious doctrine, and a series of many dread-
ful teachings with it, so that they are examples of the scripture, “They
shall turn away from sound doctrine and give heed unto fables and empty
words.” 3

1 The chief literary source of this Sect is Athanasius' Epistle to Epictetus the bishop of
Corinth, which is quoted in full at 3-13. Also quoted is the Apologia of Paulinus of Antioch,
a document composed by Athanasius (21, 1-8). The Apollinarian controversy was one in
which Epiphanius was closely involved.

2 Cf. Pindar, Pythian Odes 7.14-15: “I feel some rejoicing at a new success (spirroiplot); but
I am grieved that envy is the requital for good works.”

3 2 Tim 4:3; 1 Tim 1:4.

APOLLINARIANS

583

2,1 It was the elderly and venerable Apollinarius of Laodicea, whom I,
the blessed Pope Athanasius, and all the orthodox had always loved, who
originally thought of this doctrine and put it forward. (2) When some of
his disciples told me about it I did not at first believe that a man like
himself had introduced this doctrine to the world, and I waited patiently,
with hopeful expectation, till I could learn the facts of the matter. (3) For
I thought that his pupils who were coming to me from him had not under-
stood the profound < utterances > of so well educated and wise a man and
teacher, and had not learned this from him but had made it up on their
own. (4) For even among the ones who were visiting me, a great deal was
in dispute. Some of them dared to say that Christ had brought his body
down from on high. But the heresy stayed in people’s heads and drove
them to shocking lengths, for others denied the doctrine that Christ had
received a soul. (5) But some even dared to say that Christ’s body was
co-essential with his Godhead, and threw the east into great turmoil; it
became necessary to call a council on their account and condemn persons
of this kind.

2,6 Minutes were taken, moreover, and copies of them sent to the
blessed Pope Athanasius. Because of the minutes the blessed Pope was
obliged to write an Epistle himself against people who say such things,
in which he harshly reproved the most venerable bishop Epictetus for
even deigning to make a reply about this to the trouble-makers. (7) In the
same letter the blessed Pope wrote plainly about the faith, and denounced
those who were saying those things and making trouble. I feel obliged to
present a copy of this letter here, in its entirety. It is as follows:

Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria to Epictetus the bishop of Corinth

3,1 I had believed that every worthless doctrine of all sectarians, however
many there are, had been brought to an end by the council that convened at
Nicaea. For the faith confessed by the fathers there, in conformity with the
holy scriptures, is sufficient for the overthrow of all impiety and the commen-
dation of the godly faith in Christ. (2) And therefore, when various councils
were held just lately in Gaul , 4 Spain and the metropolis of Rome , 5 all the
participants, as though moved by one spirit, unanimously condemned those
who still secretly held the opinions of Arius, I mean Auxentius of Milan and

4 The Synod of Paris, ca. 360 a.d. Cf. Hilarius Fr. 11.1-4.

5 For the Council of Rome, see Soz. 6.23.7-15; Theod. H. E. 2.22.3-12.

584

APOLLINARLANS

Ursacius, Valens and Gains ofPannonia. ( 3 ) But because such persons con-
trive so-called councils of their own, [the participants in the orthodox coun-
cils] have written everywhere that none but the council ofNicaea alone is to
be termed a council of the catholic church — the monument of victory over
every sect, especially the Arian, on whose account the council was chiefly
called at that time.

3,4 After so much [of this sort], how can anyone still undertake to doubt
or dispute? If they are Arians, it would be no surprise that they complain of
writings against themselves, just as, when they hear, “The idols of the hea-
then are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands,” 6 pagans consider the
teaching concerning the Holy Spirit’ 1 foolishness. ( 5 ) But if it is persons who
appear to be orthodox and to love the fathers’ pronouncements who wish to
revise them by disputation, they do nothing else than to “give their neighbor
a foul outpouring to drink,” 6 as scripture says, and to dispute about words,
to no purpose but the overthrow of the simple.

4,1 I write in this way after reading the minutes your Reverence has taken.
They ought not even to have been put in writing so as to leave not even a
memory of these matters to posterity. For who has ever heard of such things?
Who has taught or learned them? ( 2 ) “For from Zion shall go forth the word
of the Lord, and the Law of God from Jerusalem;” 9 but where have these
things come from? ( 3 ) What hell spewed forth the doctrine that "< the > body
taken from Mary is co-essential with the Word’s divine nature, ” 10 or, “The
Word was transformed into flesh, bones, hair and the rest of the body, 11 and
changed from his own nature?" 12 — ( 4 ) Who has ever heard Christians say
that “The Son was clothed with a body by attribution, not nature?" Who has
been so impious as both to say and to believe that “His divine nature, which
was itself co-essential with the Father, has been curtailed, and from perfect

6 Ps 113:12.

7 Holl aylou misiifiaTos, MSS 8dou orocupoO.

8 Hab 2:15.

9 Isa 2:3.

10 Apollinarius specifically says that Christ’s flesh was not from heaven, cf. 1 Ep. Dion. 13
(Lietzmann p. 259); Fr. 164 (Lietzmann p. 259); Fr. 163 (Lietzmann p. 255). Timotheus the
Apollinarian, however, calls “The Lord’s flesh . . . co-essential with God,” Fr. 181 (Lietzmann
p. 279); cf. Apollinarius himself at De Unione 8 (Lietzmann p. 188).

11 This might be a hostilely worded statement of Apollinarius’ doctrine that Christ is

(puotc;., cf. Apol. 1 Ep. Dion. 2 (Lietzmann p. 257).

12 Apollinarius appears to say the opposite at Epist. Dion. 10, "The one thing partakes of
the other which differs from it in name (i.e., the Godhead and manhood of Christ, which
are both the same Christ), not by the incorporeal’s changing into the corporeal, or the
corporeal's changing into the incorporeal ...”

APOLLINARIANS

585

become imperfect; and that which was nailed to the tree was not the body,
but the very creative essence ofwisdom?” 13 ( 5 ) And who can hear, “The Lord
produced his passible body by transformation, not from Mary but from his
own essence, ” and suppose that a Christian is saying this?

4,6 And who conceived of this wicked impiety, so as even to think of say-
ing “Whoever says that the Lord’s body is from Mary no longer believes in
a Trinity in the Godhead, but in a quaternity >?" 14 In other words, persons
who hold such views are saying that the flesh which the Savior assumed from
Mary is of the essence of the Trinity. ( 7 ) And again, from what source have
certain persons spewn forth an equal impiety, so as to say, “Christ’s body
is not younger than the Godhead of the Lord but is forever begotten in co-
eternity with him, since it arose from wisdom ?” 15 (8) But why have persons
called Christians even presumed to doubt that the Lord who came forth from
Mary is the Son of God in essence and nature, but that, humanly speaking
he is of the seed of David and St. Mary’s flesh? ( 9 ) Who, then, have become
so audacious as to say, “The Christ who suffered and was crucified in the
flesh is not Lord, Savior, God and Son of the Father?” ( 10 ) Or how can people
wish to be called Christians who say, “The Word has come to a holy man as
to one of the prophets, and has not become man himself by taking his body
from Mary? 16 Christ is one thing; the Son of God, the Son of the Father before
Mary and before all ages, is another?” Or how < can > people be Christians
who say, “The Son is one person, and the Word of God is another?”

5,1 These things were said in various ways in your minutes, but their
intent is one and the same, and looks to impiety. Because of them, persons
who plume themselves on the confession of the fathers at Nicaea have been
differing and disputing with one another. ( 2 ) I am astonished that your
Reverence has put up with it, and has not stopped them from saying these
things and expounded the orthodox creed to them, so that they may either
hear it and be still, or dispute it and be recognized as sectarians. ( 3 ) For

13 Cf. Frag. 186 (Lietzmann p. 319), where Felix of Rome says, “We curse those who
ascribe the sufferings to the Godhead, and those who call Christ a crucified man and do
not confess that he was crucified in his whole divine hypostasis.”

14 Cf. Apol. Quod Unus Sit Deus 3.4 (Lietzmann pp. 295-297).

15 A theologian hostile to Apollinarius might draw this conclusion from such passages
as De Unione 1, (Lietzmann pp. 185-186), “There was a descent from heaven, not merely a
birth from a woman. For scripture says not only, 'Made of a woman, made under the Law,’
but likewise, ‘No man hath ascended to heaven save he that came from heaven, the Son of
Man.’ ” Cf. De Unione 9 (Lietzmann pp. 188-189).

16 Apollinarius consistently denies this doctrine: v] xara pepop marl? 6 (Lietzmann
p. 169); Frs. 14; 15 (Lietzmann pp. 208; 209); Fr. 51 (Lietzmann p.216); Ep. Dioc. 2 (Lietz-
mann p. 256).

586

APOLLINARLANS

the statements I have quoted are not to be said or heard among Christians,
but are in every way foreign to the teaching of the apostles. ( 4 ) For my part,
I have had their statements inserted baldly in my letter, as I have said, so that
one who merely hears them may observe the shame and impiety in them.
( 5 ) And even though one ought to accuse them at greater length and expose
the shame of those who harbor these thoughts, it would be better still to end
my letter here and write no more. ( 6 ) It is not right to investigate further and
expend more effort on things whose wrongness has been so plainly revealed,
or the contentious may think that they are matters open to doubt. In reply to
such statements it is enough to say simply that they are not of the catholic
church, and that the fathers did not believe them. ( 7 ) But lest the inventors
of evils take shameless occasion from my complete silence, it will be well to
mention a few passages from the sacred scriptures. For perhaps if they are
embarrassed even in this way, they will desist from these filthy notions.

6.1 What has possessedyou people to say, “The homoousion is the body of
the Word’s Godhead ?” 11 For it is best to begin with this proposition in order
that, from the demonstration of its unsoundness, all the rest may be shown
to be the same.

6.2 It is not to be found in the scriptures, for they say that God has become
incarnate in a human body. Furthermore, the fathers who met at Nicaea
said, not that the body, but the Son himself is co-essential with the Father.
And they confessed that the Son is of the Father’s essence, but that — again,
in accordance with the scriptures — his body is of Mary. ( 3 ) Therefore, either
reject the Council of Nicaea < and > introduce these opinions as sectarians;
or, if you desire to be the children of the fathers, do not believe otherwise than
they have written.

6,4 Indeed, your absurdity can be seen from the following consideration as
well. If the Word is co-essential with the body whose substance is of the earth,
but the Word is co-essential with the Father in accordance with the fathers’
confession, then the Father himself is co-essential with the body whose origin
is of the earth. ( 5 ) And why do you still blame theArians for calling the Son a
creature, whenyouyourselves say that the Father is co-essential with created
things, and — passing over to another impiety — that “The Word has been
transformed into flesh, bones, hair, sinews and the whole body, and changed
from his own nature?" ( 6 ) The time has come for you to say openly that he

17 This might be a pardonable misunderstanding of Apollinarius’ doctrine as it is stated,
for example, at De Unione 8 (Lietzmann p. 188), “Thus he is both co-essential with God in
his invisible spiritual nature, although the flesh is included in the term, since it is united
with the Son’s co-essentiality with God ...”

APOLLINARIANS

587

is made of earth.; for the substance of the bones, and of the whole body, is
made of earth.

6,7 What is this madness, of such severity that you even contradict your-
selves? For by saying that the Word is co-essential with his body you distin-
guish the one from the other, but you imagine a change of the Word himself
by his transformation into flesh. (8) And who will put up with you further if
you so much as say these things? You have leaned farther towards impiety
than any sect. If the Word is co-essential with his body mention of Mary is
superfluous, and there is no need of her. If, as you say, the Word is co-essential
with his body, the body is capable of existing eternally even before Mary, just
as is the Word himself, (g) Indeed, what need is there for the Word’s advent,
either to assume something co-essential with himself or to be altered from his
own nature and become a body? For the Godhead does not lay hold of itself,
to assume something that is co-essential with it. (10) Nor did the Word, who
atones for the sins of others, sin and so that, turned into a body, he could
offer himself as a sacrifice for himself and atone for himself.

7,1 But none of this is so, perish the thought! “He took part of the seed
of Abraham, ” as the apostle said, “ wherefore in all things it behooved him
to be made like unto his brethren ’’ 18 and take a body like ours. (2) Thus
Mary is indeed the foundation [of his body], so that he took it from her and
offered it, for us, as his own. And Isaiah indicated Mary by prophecy when
he said, “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear ." 19 And Gabriel was sent
to her — not simply “to a virgin," but “to a virgin espoused to a man ,’’ 20 to
show Mary’s true humanity through her suitor. (3) And scripture mentions
her “bringing forth ,” 21 and says, “She wrapped him in swaddling clothes ,” 22
and, “Blessed were the paps which he hath sucked .” 28 And a sacrifice was
offered, as though for a son who had “opened the womb. ” 24 But these are all
tokens of a virgin’s giving birth.

7,4 And Gabriel surely did not simply tell her, “that which is conceived ‘in’
thee ,” 25 or it might be supposed that a body had been introduced into her
from without. He said, “that which is born 'of thee ,”’ 26 so that it might be

18 Heb 2:16-17.

19 Isa 7:14.

20 Luke 1:27.

21 Luke 1:31.

22 Luke 2:7.

23 Luke 11:27.

24 Luke 2:23.

25 Cf. Matt 1:20.

26 Luke 1:35.

588

APOLLINARLANS

believed that the child, when born, was actually born 'of her. ’ Nature shows
this plainly besides, for the body of a virgin who has not given birth cannot
have milk, and a body cannot be nourished with milk or wrapped in swad-
dling clothes without first being actually born.

7,5 This is the body that was “circumcised the eighth day. ” 27 Simon “took”
this “up in his arms.” 29. This became “a child and grew ," 29 reached the age of
twelve, and attained his thirtieth year. (6) For “the very essence of the Word”
was not “changed and curtailed," as some have supposed, for it is change-
less and unalterable as the Savior himself says, “See that it is I, and I am
not changed .” 30 And Paul writes, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today
and forever .” 31 (7) But the impassible and incorporeal Word of God was in
the body that was circumcised, was carried in its mother’s arms, ate, grew
weary, was nailed to the tree and suffered. (8) This body was laid in the tomb
when Christ himself “went to preach to the spirits that were in prison ,” 32 as
Peter said.

8,1 This above all reveals the folly of those who say that the Word was
changed to bones and flesh. If this were so there would be no need of a tomb.
The body itself would have gone of itself to preach to the spirits in hades.
(2) As it is, Christ himself went to preach, but “Joseph wrapped” the body “in
a linen shroud, and laid it to rest ” 33 on Golgotha. And it has been shown to
all that the body was not the Word, but the Word’s body.

8,3 And Thomas handled this body once it was risen from the dead,
and saw in it “the prints of the nails” 34 — the sight of which nails the Lord
had endured as they were hammered into his own body, and did not pre-
vent although he could have. Instead he, the Incorporeal, claimed the
characteristics of the body for his own. (4) Of course he said, “Why smit-
est thou me ?" 35 as though he himself had been hurt, when he was struck
by the servant. And though by nature he was intangible, he still said, “I
gave my back to the scourges, and hid not my face from spitting .” 36 (5) For
what the Word’s human nature suffered, the Word united with the human

27 Cf. Luke 2:21.

28 Luke 2:28.

29 Luke 2:40.

30 Cf. Luke 24:39 (Mai 3:6).

31 Heb 13:8.

32 1 Pet 3:19.

33 Mark 15:46.

34 John 20:25.

35 John 18:23.

36 Isa 50:6.

APOLLINARIANS

589

nature imputed to himself, so that we might participate in the Word’s divine
nature.

8,6 And it was a paradox that the one who suffered was the same as the
one who did not suffer. He suffered in that his own body suffered, and he
was in the very body that suffered; but since the Word, who is God by nature,
is impassible, he did not suffer. (7) And the Incorporeal himself was in the
passible body, while the body had within it the impassible Word, nullifying
the weaknesses of the body itself. (8) But he did this, and became what he
was, in order to assume our characteristics, nullify them by offering them in
sacrifice, and finally, by enduing us with his own characteristics, enable the
apostle to say, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality ." 37

9,1 But this was not done by attribution as some, in their turn, have
surmised, perish the thought! Since the Savior became true man, he truly
became the salvation of man as a whole. (2) If the Word were < in > the body
by attribution, as they say, and something which is said to be by attribu-
tion is imaginary, both men’s salvation and their resurrection must be called
[only] apparent, as the most impious Mani teaches.

g,3 But our salvation has by no means been imaginary, or a salvation of
the body alone. The salvation of man as a whole, soul and body, has truly
been accomplished in Christ. (4) Therefore the Savior’s true body, which he
received from Mary as the sacred scriptures teach, is really human. But it
was a true body because it was the same as ours. For since all of us were
Adam’s descendants, Mary is our sister.

9,5 And no one can doubt this if he recalls what Luke wrote. For after the
resurrection from the dead, when some thought that they were not behold-
ing the Lord in the body he had taken from Mary but were seeing a spirit in
its place, he said, “See my hands and feet, and the prints of the nails, that
it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye
see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and
his feet ." 38 (6) From this, again, those who dare to say that the Lord was
changed into flesh and bones can be refuted. He did not say, “as ye see me
‘be’ flesh and bones,” but “ ‘have’ flesh, and bones,” so that there can be no
question of the Word himself being changed into these things. It must be
believed that he himself was ‘in’ these things, both before his death and after
his resurrection.

37 1 Cor 15:53.

38 Luke 24:39-40.

590

APOLLINARLANS

10,1 But since these things can be proved in this way, there is no need to
deal with the rest and enter into any discussion of them. ( 2 ) For as the body
in which the Word was is not co-essential with the divine nature but truly
born of Mary; and as the Word himself was not changed into bones and flesh,
but became incarnate in the flesh — ( 3 ) for this is the sense of the words in
John, “The Word became flesh ,” 39 as can be learned from a similar passage.
For it is written in Paul, “Christ became a curse for us .’’ 40 And as Christ did
not himself become a curse, but [it is said] that he became a curse because
he assumed the curse for us, so he became flesh, not by turning into flesh, but
by assuming flesh for us and becoming man.

10,4 For — once more — to say, “The Word was made flesh, ” is the equiv-
alent of saying that he became man, as is said in the Book of Joel, “I will
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh .” 41 < For > the promise did not < extend >
to animals but is for men, for whom, indeed, the Lord became man. ( 5 ) And
since this is the meaning of this text, those who have supposed that “The flesh
that came from Mary was before Mary, and the Word had a human soul
before her and had always been in it before his advent, ” must surely with
good reason condemn themselves. ( 6 ) Those too who have said, “His flesh is
not subject to death, but is of an immortal nature," will cease to say so. For
if Christ did not die, how could Paul “deliver” to the Corinthians “that which
I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ?’ 42
How could Christ rise at all, if he did not first die?

10,7 But those who even suppose that there can be “a quaternity instead of
the Trinity” if the body is said to be from Mary, must blush beet red. (8) “For, ”
< they say >, “if we say that the body is co-essential with the Word, the Trin-
ity remains a Trinity, since the Word imports nothing foreign into it. But if
we say that the body born of Mary is a human body, then, since the body by
its nature is other than [the Word], and since the Word is in it, there will
necessarily be a quaternity instead of a Trinity because of the addition of the
body. ” ( 11 , 1 ) But they do not realize how they fall foul of themselves by saying
this. For if they say that the body is not from Mary but is co-essential with the
Word, it will be shown nonetheless that they, on their notion, are speaking of
a quaternity — the very misrepresentation that they made to avoid giving the
impression that they believed it. ( 2 ) For as the Son who, in their view, is not
the Father himself despite his co-essentiality with the Father, but is called a

39 John 1:14.

40 Gal 3:13.

41 Joel 3:1.

42 1 Cor 15:3.

APOLLINARIANS

591

Son co-essential with the Father, so the body, which is co-essential with the
Word, is not the Word himself, but different from the Word. ( 3 ) But since it is
different, on their own showing their Trinity will be a quaternity. For the true,
and truly perfect and undivided Trinity receives no addition, but the Trinity
of their invention does. And since they invent a God other than the true one,
how can they still be Christians’?

11,4 For once more, their foolishness can be seen in another of their soph-
isms. They are very wrong if they think that a quaternity is being spoken
of instead of a Trinity because the Savior’s body is, and is said in the scrip-
tures to be, of Mary and human, since this makes an addition to the Trinity
because of the body. For they are equating the creature with the creator, and
supposing that the Godhead can receive an addition. ( 5 ) And they have not
understood that the Word did not become flesh to add to the Godhead, but
to enable the flesh to rise — nor that the Word did not come forth from Mary
for his own betterment, but for the redemption of the human race.

11,6 How can they think that the body, which was redeemed and given life
by the Word, makes an addition of Godhead to the life-giving Word? Rather,
a great addition was made to < the> human body itself by the Word’s fel-
lowship and union with it. ( 7 ) Instead of a mortal body it became immortal;
instead of an ensouled body it became spiritual. Though a body of earth, it
passed through the heavenly gates. The Trinity is a Trinity even though the
Word took a body from Mary. It allows of no addition or subtraction but is
forever perfect, and is known as one Godhead in Trinity; thus it is preached
in the church that there is one God, the Father of the Word.

12,1 Because of this, finally, those who once said, “The one who came
forth from Mary is not the Christ himself, and Lord and God, ’’will hold their
tongues. ( 2 ) If he was not God in the body, why was he called “Immanuel,
which, being interpreted, is, God is with us,’’ 43 as soon as he came forth from
Mary? And if the Word was not in flesh, why did Paul write to the Romans,
“of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for
evermore. Amen?” 44 ( 3 ) Let those who formerly denied that the Crucified is
God admit their error and be convinced by all the sacred scriptures — most
of all by Thomas who, after seeing the nail prints in his hands, cried out, “My
Lord and my God!’’ 45

43 Matt 1:23.

44 Rom 9:5.

45 John 20:28.

592

APOLLINARLANS

12,4 For though the Son was God and the Lord of glory, he was in the
ingloriously nailed, dishonored body. The body suffered when it was pinned
to the wood and blood and water flowed from its side, but all the while, as
the temple of the Word, it was filled with the Word’s Godhead. (5) Thus it was
that the sun withdrew its rays and darkened the earth on seeing its maker
lifted up in his tortured body. But though of a mortal nature, the body itself
rose in transcendence of its nature. It ceased from the corruptibility of its
nature, became the garment of the Word, and by donning the more than
human Word, became incorruptible.

12,6 But there is no reason for me to discuss the imaginary thing some
people say, “As a word came upon each of the prophets, so the Word came
upon one particular man who was born of Mary." Their stupidity obviously
carries its own condemnation. If this is the way he came, why is he born of
a virgin, and not as the child of a man and a woman himself? Each of the
saints was born like that. (7) Or, if this is how the Word came, why is every
man’s death not said to have been for us, but only the death of this man? If
the Word arrived with each of the prophets, why is it said only of the son of
Mary that he came “once, in the end of the ages ?” 46 (8) Or, if he came in
the same way that he came in the saints before him, why have all the oth-
ers died and not yet risen, while the son of Mary alone arose the third day?
(g) Or, if the Word came just like the others, why is only the son of Mary
called Immanuel, because his body has been filled with Godhead and bom
of her? For Immanuel means “God is with us." (10) Or, if this is the way he
came, since each of the saints eats, tires and dies, why is it not said that each
one <was > eating, tiring and dying but said only of the Son of Mary? For
the things this body suffered are mentioned because it was he himself who
suffered them. And though of all the others it is said merely that they were
born and begotten, only of Mary’s offspring is it said, “And the Word was
made flesh .” 47

13,1 This will show that the Word came to all the others to help them
prophesy, but that the Word himself took flesh from Mary and came forth
as a man — God’s Word in nature and essence, “but of the seed of David
according to the flesh’’ 46 — and was made man of Mary’s flesh, as Paul has
said. (2) The Father identified him in the Jordan and on the mount by saying
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .” 49 (3) The Arians have

46 Heb 9:26.

47 John 1:14.

48 Rom 1:3.

49 Matt 3:17; 17:5.

APOLLINARIANS

593

denied him but we know and worship him, not distinguishing the Son from
the Word, but knowing that the Word himself is the Son, by whom all things
have been made, and we set free.

13.4 Thus I am surprised that there has been any contention among you
over matters so < plain >. But God be thanked, my sorrow at reading your
minutes is matched by my joy at their conclusion. (5) For [the participants]
departed in harmony, and peaceably agreed on the confession of the ortho-
dox faith. It is this that has led me to write these few lines after much prior
consideration, for I am concerned that my silence not give pain rather than
joy to those who, by their agreement, have given me cause to rejoice. I there-
fore ask that, primarily your Reverence, and secondly your hearers, receive
this with a good conscience, and, if < in any respect > it falls short of true
religion, that you correct this and send me word. But if it has been unfitly
and imperfectly written as by one untrained in speaking, I ask the pardon of
all for my feebleness of speech. Farewell!

14,1 Since I have inserted this letter and not merely set out to write
against the Apollinarians because of things I have heard from them or
from others, it has been made plain to everyone that I have accused no
one falsely. (2) But next I shall take up the case against them, so that there
can be no suspicion on anyone’s part that I am slandering my brethren —
though I pray for them even now, that they may correct the things that
appear to disturb me, so that they may not lose me, or I, them. (3) For
I have often made this plea, and have begged, and still continue to beg
that they remove the contention and follow the sacred ordinance of the
apostles, the evangelists and the fathers, and the confession of the faith
which is simple, firm, unshakeable, and in every way entirely right.

14.4 Others have told me in private that the Lord did not take this flesh
of ours, or any flesh like it, when he came, but took another flesh, dif-
ferent from ours. And if they would only speak to his glory and praise!
(5) I too say that his body is holy and undehled: “He did no sin, neither
was guile found in his mouth.” 50 And this is plain to everyone who speaks
and thinks of Christ in a godly way. (6) And even though I speak of his
actual body just as he took our actual body, his body

< remained* > undefiled. In us who have offended, however, < our bod-
ies have become different from the Lord’s* >. [This is] not because our
bodies are different, and alien to his in their inferiority and degradation;

< our bodies have become different from the Lord’s* > because of our sins

50 1 Pet 2:22.

594

APOLLINARLANS

and transgressions. (7) For the Lord did not take one sort of body while
we have another sort; the very body which [in him] is preserved and kept
undefiled, < in us has been sullied* >.

15.1 Others of them, even now motivated by contention, are led on by
strange opinions and do not “hold fast to the head of the faith” as the
fathers teach, “from whom the whole body, supplied and knit together by
its joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God,” 51 as the apostle
says. (2) With their ears ringing, perhaps as with strange doctrines, they,
like Valentinus, Marcion and Mani, imagine things in supposed honor of
Christ rather than telling the truth.

15,3 Whenever I tell them that Christ had our body, they turn at once
to their own contentious fabrications (4) and say that he had nails, flesh,
hair and so on, but not the kind we have; he had different nails, differ-
ent flesh, and all the rest not like what we have but different from ours.
< They imagine their* > futile words because they would like to do Christ
some sort of quibbling favor in their own turn, if you please, like Valenti-
nus and the other sects 1 have mentioned. (5) For they say, “If we confess
that Christ’s < body > < has* > all [the features of a body] in their entirety, 52
<we must also allow it all the natural functions.” But “Meddle not with
more than thy works.”* > 53 This scripture refers to people of their kind,
who are “busybodies and work not.” 54 (6) To strike terror in the hearts of
the simple, they say straight off, “[If Christ’s body was like ours], he had
the normal physical needs — evacuation, or going to the bathroom, or the
other things.” They think all this is wise, but it is horrid and silly, as the
prophet said, “Who hath required this at your hands?” 55 (7) Of which of
the saints did scripture mention such things, although the prophets were
men and not gods, and the evangelists and others were unquestionably
made of soul and flesh like ourselves? Where did scripture not witness
instead to the more seemly things in the saints, let alone the Lord Christ?

16.1 Those who are frightening the sheep, startling the doves and stam-
peding Christ’s lambs and flock, had better tell me where Moses went to
the bathroom during the forty days! (2) Where did Elijah attend to his
needs at the brook Kidron (sic), when he ate bread in the morning and
meat in the evening, brought by the ravens at God’s command? (3) ft

51 Cf. Col 2:19.

52 Here Holl adds two lines of Greek. MSS: simply irspiepyui;.

53 Sir 3:23.

54 2 Thes 3:11.

55 Isa 132.

APOLLINARIANS

595

would be foolish of the scripture to speak of these things, just as it was
foolish of these people to inquire into them. What is the good of such
things? What use are they — except to foster unbelief, since prejudice
finds its opportunities in silly statement and worthless rebuttal.

16,4 What’s more, better tell me why God kept the children of Israel’s
hair from getting long for forty years, and their shoes from wearing out,
and their clothes from getting worn or torn, when that was his will. (5) Had
they come from heaven too? Were they gods? Indeed, they were not in
God’s good graces, but had provoked God in many ways. Didn’t they have
the same frailties as we? God did this to show that in him all things are
possible, and that he allows them to happen and not happen.

16,6 But for our sakes, lest anyone should attribute anything super-
natural to them because of the miracles God did for them — that is, that
their hair did not grow, and their clothes did not wear out and the rest,
and because “Man ate the bread of angels” 56 — (7) the sacred scripture
reassured us by saying, “Let each man take an iron peg in his girdle, that,
when thou easest thyself in a place, thou shalt dig and cover thine own
stool; for ye are people sanctified, and the Lord dwelleth in the midst of
your camp.” 57 (8) As to this, the native Hebrews tell the story that this was
the standard for a while, until God willed to show this wonder in them,
that even though they were eating both meat and land-rails, 58 they found
they had no need of it.

17,1 And whether, < as seems more likely* >, the Hebrews have this tra-
dition in their ancestors’ honor, whether, < preferably >, as a gratuitous
addition or as a fact — though they surely know themselves that their cli-
ents were mortal and not gods, and were made of flesh, blood and soul —
(2) who can put up with the Apollinarians’ insufferable remarks about
Christ, the divine Word who came from heaven, and his in all respects
glorious and true human nature? In it he fulfilled the saying, “in all points
tempted as a man, yet without sin.” 59 (3) For even though he truly had
our flesh, it was possible for him not to do the things that we regard as
undignified, and to do such things as were seemly, and of a fitness in
proportion to his Godhead. For it was by his doing that the hair of the
children of Israel did not grow, their clothes did not get dirty, and these
things < which >, according to tradition, happened to them. (4) But there

56 p s 77:25.

57 Deut 23:13-14.

58 opTuyopiTpa, a bird that migrates with quail.

59 Cf. Heb 4:15.

596

APOLLINARLANS

is no doubt that Christ indeed had man-made clothing: “They parted his
raiment, and upon his vesture did they cast lots.” 60 (5) But if his garment
was made by men it was plainly made of wool and linen, and woolen and
linen things are inanimate and lifeless. (6) And yet when Christ willed to
display the power of his Godhead “He was transfigured and showed his
countenance as the sun, and his garments white as wool.” 61 (7) "For to
the Mighty One all things are possible,” 62 and in an instant he can change
lifeless and inanimate things, contrary to expectation, to glory and splen-
dor, like Moses’ rod, like the shoes of the children of Israel. (8) For we all
agree that the holy apostles were men, with mortal bodies like ours. But
because of the glory of God that indwelt them they were immortal, and
Peter’s shadow healed all the sick who were brought to him, and napkins
and kerchieves from Paul’s clothing worked miracles.

18,1 And why do these people take the trouble to make shameful
guesses about God, on subjects there has never been a need to discuss —
for any prophet, evangelist, apostle or author? (2) However many of such
things they say, even if they make a million more bad guesses, they won’t
overturn the faith of our fathers which declares Christ truly < man >.

18,3 For Christ was truly born in the flesh of Mary the ever-virgin, by
the agency of the Holy Spirit. He was called Immanuel, or “God is with
us,” < and > can have no second birth. (4) As a child he fled to Egypt with
Joseph and Mary, since [enemies] were seeking the child’s life — which is
as much as to say that he could be killed in the flesh. Still, he was wor-
shiped by the magi as true God, begotten in the flesh < in reality >, not
appearance. (5) And due to Joseph’s fear because of Archelaus, he did
not enter Jerusalem on his return from Egypt — showing that the child
could be arrested, and could 63 suffer too soon what he was to suffer in
the flesh.

18,6 < He came willingly to baptism* >, but was hindered by John, rec-
ognized as master by the servant as God truly incarnate. But in this case,
so as to “fulfill all righteousness” 64 in the flesh and “leave us an example” 65

60 John 19:24.

61 Matt 17:2.

62 Cf. Mark 10:27.

63 Drexl and MSS SuvapiEvou . . . ev rapid 7ra0Etv, Holl Suvapisvou <dvay>co'a'0v)vai> ev rapid
7Ta0E[V.

64 Matt 3:15.

65 Cf. 1 Pet 2:21.

APOLLINARIANS

597

of salvation in his true and perfect humanity, he did not accept his ser-
vant’s honor.

18,7 Moreover, he grew truly weary from his journey — and he was not
simply weary but sat down as well, because he had truly become man.
< And yet > he cried, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest,” 66 to show that his Godhead is sufficient to give
rest to all the world’s multitudes who come to him. (8) Further, he was
tempted by the devil, and remained forty days without food or drink, to
show the self-sufficiency of his Godhead, (g) For he did not go hungry as
you and I master ourselves like philosophers, and subject himself to dis-
cipline and restraint; because of his true Godhead, he went hungry with-
out lacking anything. (10) And the scripture says, “He was afterwards an
hungered,” 67 to show the true incarnation of his Godhead, which allowed
the manhood the satisfaction of its lawful and true needs, so that the
truth of the sequence [of these events] 68 would not hide the true man-
hood. (11) For he was hungry at the fig tree too, and he made real clay. But
as God he commanded the fig tree and was obeyed. And on the ship he
rebuked the wind, and it dropped. (12) And with the spittle and clay he
fashioned the missing member and bestowed it on the blind man, as upon
Adam, by the command of his Godhead and the spittle of his humanity —
and once again, by the clay. For all things were in him in their fullness;
suffering in his flesh, impassibility in his Godhead, until he arose from the
dead, never again to suffer, to “die no more” 69 at all.

18,13 But if there are any who suppose that, because he did not get it
from a man’s seed, he received a different body, this in no way makes it
unlike our bodies. Since we agree that it was born of Mary, it was ours.
Mary was not different from our bodies — for Adam was not from a man’s
seed either, but was formed from earth! (14) And his body was by no means
different from ours because of his being of the earth and not of a man’s
seed. For we are his descendants and our bodies are not different from his,
even though we are of a man’s seed and born of a woman’s womb.

18,15 But by quibbling about this often and having it in their heads,
some have lost touch with the question before us. In turn, some of those
who come to see me have wasted a million other words and more on the

66 Matt 11:28.

67 Matt 4:2.

68 I.e., he fasts for forty days without needing food, and only then becomes hungry.

69 Rom 6:g.

598

APOLLINARLANS

accusation of a man who is widely esteemed. And in fact, I think they have
made the disturbance worse than necessary, whether < unintentionally* >
from stupidity or ignorance, or whether they deliberately come forward
and speak out. But with the readers’ agreement, let this be enough about
the non-essentials; from motives of envy, or dislike
of the man. (16) For I pray that he has not been parted from the church of
Christ and the sweetness of the whole brotherhood, but that he has given
up instigating the contention over this matter and returned, as scripture
says, “Return, return, O Shunamite; return, and we will look on thee.” 70 In
any case, I shall once more take up the thread of the subject.

ig,i He will not say that Christ’s human nature is complete. Further-
more, he hinders some people’s salvation by frightening them and telling
them we must not say that Christ has “taken up” perfect manhood, sup-
posedly because of the scripture, “The Lord taketh up the meek.” 71 (2) But
no one can show that this is anything out of the ordinary or different — to
say that he Lord “took up” flesh, or “took” perfect manhood — from our
frequent use of synonymous expressions. (3) Scripture says, ‘The Lord
taketh up the meek,” "He took me up from the flocks of sheep,” 72 “He
was taken up,” 73 and, “The two men said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand
ye? This [Jesus], who hath been taken up from you.” 74 (4) And there is
no difference at all in the meaning of taking up, whether one says “Christ
took up,” or, “took,” or, “formed his own humanity.” 75 Nor can those who
choose to attack the simple and < say that > we must < not > talk like this,
frighten us with this word.

And no one need think that I am speaking slanderously, or jokingly,
about this matter. (5) I have often thought of writing on this subject, but
< have held back > so that no one would think I was attacking him from
enmity. Humanly speaking, he has done me no harm, and taken nothing
of mine. (6) But though I considered not writing this, I am compelled to
by the truth itself, so as to omit no < one > whose opinions are different
from the faith, as pious readers will understand later that I am not speak-
ing from worldly jealousy. (7) Indeed, the man would be of the utmost
service to me — < he is the best* > in the world, both in < education* > and

70 Cant 7:1.

71 Ps 146:6.

72 Cf. Ps 77:70.

73 Acts 1:2.

74 Acts 1:11.

75 aveXafkv, sXaftev, avenXaaaciTo.

APOLLINARIANS

599

in love — if, in harmony with God’s holy church, he would agree with us
all in every way and not import any strange doctrine.

19,8 Whether he or his disciples use the expression in passing, in a dif-
ferent sense [but] in this form and appearance, I cannot say. (9) But I
have often considered, and been perturbed that they justify the arousal
of contention and a battle to the death for the sake of this expression.
(10) And this tells me that they probably use the expression in some rather
strange sense.

20,1 For when you ask any of them they all tell you something differ-
ent, but some say that the Lord has not taken perfect manhood or become
perfect man. (2) But since many found this repugnant they finally turned
to deception, as 1 learned directly from them in so many words. (3) For 1
visited Antioch and had a meeting with their leaders, one of whom was
the bishop Vitalius, a man of the most godly life, character and conduct.
(4) And 1 advised and urged them to assent to the faith of the holy church,
and give up the contentious doctrine.

20,5 But Vitalius said, “But what quarrel is there between us?” For he
was at odds with a respectable and eminent man, the bishop Paulinus, and
Paulinus was at odds with Vitalius, whom 1 had summoned. (6) 1 hoped
to reconcile the two; both appeared to be preaching the orthodox faith,
and yet each of them disagreed [with the other] for some reason — (7) for
Vitalius had accused Paulinus of Sabellianism. And thus, when 1 arrived
< at Antioch* > 1 had refrained from full communion with Paulinus, until
he convinced me by submitting a document < in > which, on a previous
occasion, he had stated his agreement with the blessed Athanasius to clear
himself. (8) For he brought a signed copy of this and gave it to me. It con-
tains a clear statement about the Trinity and the mind of Christ’s human
nature, composed by our blessed father Athanasius himself. 1 append this
statement; it is as follows:

A copy of the document written by Bishop Paulinus 76

21,1 /, Paulinus, bishop, believe as I have received from the fathers that there
is a perfect existent and subsistent Father and a perfect subsistent Son, and
that the perfect Holy Spirit is subsistent. (2) I therefore receive the above
account of the three entities and the one subsistence or essence, and receive

76 This document is also appended to the Epistle of the Council of Alexandria, 362 a.d.,
as given in Athanasius, Tomus ad Alexandras 11.

6oo

APOLLINARLANS

those who so believe; for it is godly to believe and confess the Trinity in
one Godhead. (3) And of the incarnation for us of the Word of the Father,
I believe as it has formerly been written that, as John says, “The Word was
made flesh .’’ 77 (4) For I do not believe as the most impious persons do, who
say that he has undergone a change; but I believe that he has become man
for us, and was conceived of the holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit.

21,5 Nor did the Savior have a lifeless body without sensation or intel-
ligence. (6) For as the Lord has become man for us, it would be impossible
that his body be without intelligence. (7) I therefore condemn those who set
aside the creed ofNicaea, and do not confess that the Son is of the Father’s
essence, or co-essential with the Father. (8) I also condemn those who say
that the Holy Spirit is a creature made by the Son. (9) I further condemn the
heresies ofSabellius and Photinus, and every heresy, for I am content with
the creed ofNicaea and with all that is written above.

The End

22,1 But I said besides to my brother Vitalius and those who were with
him, “And what do you have to say? If there is anything wrong between
you, put it right!”

“Let them tell you < themselves >,” said Vitalius. (2) But Paulinus and
his companions said that Vitalius and his denied that Christ has become
perfect man.

Vitalius answered at once, “Yes, we confess that Christ has taken perfect
manhood.” And this was wonderful for the audience to hear, and a great
pleasure. (3) < But > since I know the spirit of those who gain their broth-
ers’ agreement through pretenses, I kept asking for his exact meaning, and
said, “Do you confess that Christ has truly taken flesh?”

“Yes,” he agreed.

22.4 “Of the holy virgin Mary and by the Holy Spirit, without the seed
of a man?” He agreed to this too.

22.5 “Did the divine Word, the Son of God, actually take flesh from the
Virgin at his coming?” He emphatically agreed.

By this time I had become glad, for I had heard from some of those
youngsters who came to me on Cyprus that he did not believe that Christ’s
flesh was from Mary at all. (6) But when this most godly man himself had
confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from Mary, I asked him,
in turn, if he also took a soul. To this too he agreed with the same vehe-

77 John 1:14.

APOLLINARIANS

6 01

mence, and said, “One must not say otherwise, but must tell the truth in
everything. (7) For whoever writes to men about the truth must disclose
his whole mind, have the fear of God before his eyes, and include no false-
hood in the message of the scripture.”

23.1 Vitalius, then, agreed that Christ had also taken a human soul; for
it was he who had said, "Yes, Christ was perfect man.” But next, after my
questions about the soul and the flesh, I asked, “Did Christ take a mind
when he came?”

Vitalius at once denied this and said, “No.”

23.2 Then I said to him, “Then why do you say that he has been made
perfect man?” And he revealed his own notion of the meaning of this: “We
are calling him perfect man if we make him the Godhead instead of the
mind, and the flesh and the soul, so that he is perfect man composed of
flesh, and soul, and Godhead instead of mind.”

23.3 So now his contentiousness was out in the open and I discussed it
at length, and proved from scripture that we must confess that the divine
Word took everything in its perfection, that he provided < the human
nature > in its fullness at his incarnation and < possesses > it in its fullness;
and that he united it [with his Godhead] after his resurrection and pos-
sesses it, and none other, in glory, in its entirety and spiritual, united in his
Godhead with himself; and that the whole fullness makes one Godhead,
and he sits at the Father’s right hand in heaven, on the glorious throne of
his eternal sovereignty and rule. But in the end I got up without having
convinced either side, because of their obvious contentiousness.

23.4 But this is how I realized that they were not talking about the
mind, but that their doctrine of the mind is different [from ours]. For at
times they would not admit that Christ had taken a soul. (5) But when
I made the rejoinder, “Well, what is the ‘mind’ then? Do you think it’s a
real thing inside a man? Is man therefore a conglomerate?” some of them
opined that the “mind” is the “spirit” which the sacred scripture regularly
says is in man. (6) But when I showed them that the mind is not the spirit,
since the apostle plainly says, "I will sing with the mind, I will sing with
the spirit,” 78 there was a long discussion, but I could not convince the
contending parties.

24,1 Then in turn, I asked some of them, “What do you mean? Are you
saying that the mind is an actual thing?” And some of them said it is not
a thing, because I had convinced them with, “I will sing with the mind,

78 1 Cor 14:15.

602

APOLLINARLANS

I will sing with the spirit,” that we must not believe that the mind is the
thing called “the spirit of a man.” (2) And since they had no reply to this,
I then said, “All right, if the mind isn’t a real thing but is a movement
of our whole selves, but you say of this that Christ is the mind, do you
therefore imagine that Christ isn’t a real thing, and that he has brought
his incarnation about only nominally, and in appearance?”

24,3 And I felt deeply grieved 79 then, and the even tenor of my life
was made painful, because dissensions had been sown for no good rea-
son among these people who are brethren and praiseworthy, so that that
enemy of man, the devil, may keep causing differences among us. (4) But,
brethren, considerable mutual damage arises from this cause. It would
be simplest if no discussion of this had been stirred up in the first place.
What good has this innovation done the world? How has it benefited the
church — or rather, hasn’t it harmed it by causing hatred and strife? But
because this doctrine has been put forward, it has become frightening.
(5) It is not for the betterment of our salvation; it is a denial of our salva-
tion, not only on this point for one who does not confess it, but in a very
small point too. 80 One must not stray from the way of the truth even in
an unimportant matter.

24,6 Let me speak against this doctrine too, then, since I choose not to
stray from my own salvation or abandon the rule of God’s holy church and
confession. (7) None of the ancients ever said this — no prophet, apostle,
evangelist, no interpreter down to our own day, when this doctrine of
such sophistry issued from the very learned man I have spoken of. (8) For
he has been equipped with no mean education. He began with elemen-
tary schooling and Greek learning, and was trained in the whole of dia-
lectic and rhetoric. Moreover, his life is otherwise of the holiest, and he
remained beloved by the orthodox 81 < and > ranked with the foremost,
until this business. (9) He suffered banishment too, because he < would >
not associate with the Arians. And why should I say all this? I am very
sorry, and my life is a grief to me because, as I have often said, the devil
is always afflicting us.

25,1 Now then, to omit none of the truth, as I have said, I shall begin
on this doctrine. What good has it done us to expel the mind from Christ’s

79 Holl Xuro] xai oSuvvjpd ; MSS: Xurojpd.

80 I.e., not only is the Apollinarian doctrine of Christ heretical, but they have an
unscriptural definition of “mind.”

81 Holl <op xcd 7rpop toiv 6p0o861jcov del ev dydm]/ xai ev 7rpct)-ra dpi 0pa>/ te Ta-rropsvop; MSS
xai xcov 7rpop 6p0oSol;cov asi ev 7xpcoxcp dpi0pa>/ xaxxopEvop.

APOLLINARIANS

603

human nature? (2) If your argument was advanced to be a help — if I can
say that — to our Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Word and the Son of God,
and we are to deny that he took a mind so as not to conceive of any defect
in his Godhead, the Manichaeans, the Marcionites and other sects deserve
much more credit than we. They will not ascribe flesh to him, so as not to
make his Godhead defective.

25.3 But the meaning of the truth does not conform to human wishes,
but to the wisdom that governs it, and the incomprehensibility that
directs it. (4) Since we profess our faith in this form and do not agree with
Mani — he will do Christ no favor by supposing that Christ has not taken
flesh, but will be deprived of the truth by confessing Christ’s incarnation
[only] in appearance. [Since we do not agree with him], even now this
vulgar chatter will be a favor of no use to our brothers. (5) Both they and
we agree < that* >, unless they are willing to change their minds, < the
Manichaeans will depart from our confession of faith entirely.* > And
when pressed, certain Apollinarians have often been caught in the denial
that Christ took true flesh, as I said, because some of them have dared to
say that his flesh is co-essential with his Godhead. (6) But they should be
cast out as < un >repentant, and exposed for such wickedness before those
of them whose view of Christ’s flesh is correct. Surely the most godly Apol-
linarius himself will not deny this.

26,1 Now if the Word took true flesh when he came, and truly took it
from Mary, not by a man’s seed but through the Holy Spirit; and if he was
truly conceived and, since he was God and the fashioner of the first man
and all things, fashioned his own < flesh >; then the Word was not dimin-
ished at his coming, but remained in his own unchanging nature. (2) For
since he is co-essential with God the Father and not different from the
Father and the Holy Spirit, he underwent no change when he took flesh. If
we agree, therefore, that he has plainly taken flesh and come to maturity,
then he is not without a soul. (3) For except for things which do not move,
everything that matures is composed of soul and body, as the scripture
says, “Jesus increased in wisdom and maturity,” to prove his flesh by the
“maturity”; 82 but maturity, as I said, is attained by a soul and a body.

26.4 But after saying, “He increased in maturity,” it next says, “and in
wisdom.” And how could he who is the Father’s wisdom increase in wis-
dom, if his body was deprived of a human mind? And if he was without

82 Luke 2:52.

604

APOLLINARIANS

mind, how could he increase in wisdom, soul and body? And you see how
forced people’s notion is when they reject the mind.

“But,” Apollinarius would say, "I deny that he took a human mind. [If
we say that he did], we will make him covetous, ill-tempered; for the mind
in us is covetous.” And there certainly is a great deal of human contention;
as the scripture has said, “God made man simple, but they have made
for themselves many counsels.” 83 (5) Now if, by the confession that he
has taken a human mind, we attribute any of our defectiveness to him,
all the more, by confessing that he has taken flesh, we will grant on the
same principle that he has become defective in this respect, in flesh. But
perish that thought! (6) Now as the Word was < not > defective in the flesh
when he came even though he had true flesh, so he has not conceived of
anything unbecoming his Godhead in his mind. The Lord, when he came,
did whatever is right for flesh, and for a soul and a human mind, so as
not to disturb the course of his true human life. (7) For hunger, thirst,
weariness, sleep, journeying, grief, weeping and disturbance were right.
But these right things duly taking place in him showed < the truth* > of
his true human nature.

27,1 For scripture never says that he had a wrong desire. But he had
a good desire when he said, “With desire I have desired to eat this Pass-
over with you.” 84 Desire, however, does not stem from his Godhead, or
from the flesh alone or the irrational soul, but from the perfect manhood
of body, < soul and > mind, and everything in man. (2) For the Word
acquired these things when he came — body, soul, mind and all that is in
man, except for sin, except for defect, as the scripture says, “in all points
tempted as a man except for sin.” 85 But if he was tempted in all points,
the Word acquired all things when he came. (3) If he had acquired every-
thing, however, then in himself he was free from defect and kept them all
unsullied — being perfect God born of flesh, and, as the Perfecter of the
whole human nature, perfectly fulfilling all things. He was not divided by
the unseemly behavior of the flesh, or distracted by the wrong thought of
the mind within us.

27,4 For our mind was not given us to sin, but to examine the ends
of our ideas from both sides and perform righteousness and the oppo-
site. “The mind discriminates words; the throat tastes foods,” 86 and, “Eye

83 Cf. Eccles 7:29.

84 Luke 22:15.

85 Cf. Heb4:i5-

86 Job 12:11.

APOLLINARIANS

605

understands and mind sees.” 87 Thus the mind is the sight, taste and dis-
crimination within us and is granted us by God, but assents to nothing
unless the man wants it to. (5) But the flesh is continually denounced
in every scripture for the lust that arises in it. Of course the text is not
denouncing flesh itself; the word denounced the products of the flesh, as
the apostle said because of the flesh’s by-products, “I know that in me,
that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” 88

27,6 But in rejection of the sects’ idea that the flesh has nothing to
hope for from the resurrection of the dead, Paul says, “This corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 89
Thus it may not be thought that, by rejecting the works of flesh which
scripture regularly calls “flesh,” he is rejecting the hope of the resurrec-
tion of the flesh. (7) For he plainly denounced the deeds that are wickedly
done in the flesh, but showed that, in a person who sanctifies his flesh, the
flesh itself is a holy temple, as the scripture says, “Pure worship of God and
our Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and
to keep himself unspotted from the world,” 90 and elsewhere, “Blessed are
they that keep pure the flesh.” 91

27,8 But though the scripture has often spoken against “flesh” and
taught us that lusts and pleasures grow in it, it makes no complaint against
the mind. Instead it says, “I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the
spirit,” 92 and, “if, in turn, I sing with the spirit, but my mind is unfruitful.” 93
(g) And you see that there is fruit in him, in his mind. And even if there
were no fruit, Paul never counted the mind as sinful, but made the fruit
known by means of the mind.

28, r But what harm did this do to the power of our Lord’s Godhead?
What weakened his power? The holy woman’s belly? The Virgin’s womb?
His parents’ journeys? Simeon’s embrace? Anna’s welcome? Being carried
by Mary? The harlot’s touch? A woman’s hair touching his feet? Her tears?
Being laid in a tomb? The shroud did not envelop that inviolate Lord and
his supreme power by enwrapping his body.

87 Cf. Prov 20:12.

88 Rom 7:18.

89 1 Cor 15:53.

90 Cf. Jas 1:27.

91 Acts of Paul and Thecla 5.

92 1 Cor 14:15.

93 Cf 1 Cor 14:14.

6o6

APOLLINARLANS

28.2 Indeed, when he was still in the womb John leaped for joy at his
Master’s visit to him through the holy Virgin’s pregnancy. But when he
had been born and lay in a manger, it was no mystery to a choir of angels.
Bands of angels were sent to serve as escorts at the coming of the ever-
lasting king; hymns of victory were offered, peace was proclaimed to the
shepherds.

28.3 But what caused any weakening of his power? While he was still a
babe in arms a sign, the star, appeared in the east, magi arrived, worship
was offered and gifts given. Scribes were questioned by the king, and in
reply they confessed their faith in Christ. (4) And all the other things in
the series, what harm did they do his Godhead? How did the possession of
the flesh veil it, as is the case with us? He rebuked the waves, winds and
sea, and the power of his Godhead was not prevented by the flesh from
doing what it is the Godhead’s nature to do. (5) What is more, though
the flesh is a burden and load, he was not encumbered by a load. As the
changeless God, and in the flesh but not changed by the flesh, he walked
on the water < as though on dry land >. With a < loud > voice he called,
“Lazarus, come forth!” 94 unhindered by the flesh, and with no enslave-
ment of his Godhead in the flesh to his perfect manhood.

2g,i And I have a great deal to say < about this >. He rose from the
dead, what is more, forced the gates of hades, took the captives, brought
them upward; and after rising the third day in his holy flesh itself, and
in his holy soul, mind and entire human nature, he became perfect man
united with Godhead, for he had joined his manhood to his Godhead,
and death “hath no more dominion over him. 95 (2) United with his God-
head, however, he made his coarseness fine and “entered where doors
were barred.” 96 And after his entrance he exhibited his “flesh and bones,” 97
suggesting the readiness of his power to save, and affording us a glimpse
of our hope, for the Word has perfected all things by his coming. And he
sat in glory at the Father’s right hand after being taken up in his body
itself, not burdened by its bulk [and yet] not without a body, for he had
raised his body spiritual. (3) If our body is “sown in corruption, raised in
incorruption, sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body,” 98 how much
more the body of God’s only-begotten Son? And thus the scripture, “Thou

94 John 11:43.

95 Rom 6:9.

96 Cf. John 20:19; 26.

97 Luke 24:39.

98 Cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44.

APOLLINARIANS

607

shalt not deliver thine holy one to see corruption, neither shalt thou leave
my soul in hell,” 99 has been fulfilled.

2g,4 But I have said all this about his perfect human nature so that no
one will suppose that, because he took perfect flesh, he therefore did the
unsuitable deeds of the flesh. No orthodox believer thinks or says this of
him. But if no one thinks that he did the unsuitable deeds of the flesh, no
one may suppose that he did the unsuitable deeds of the mind! (5) And it
is plain that, when he came, the Word became man perfectly.

And if we say, “[became man] perfectly,” we do not have two Christs, or
two kings and sons of God, but the same God and the same Man — not as
though he had come to dwell in a man, but the same God himself wholly
made man. And not a man who advanced to Godhead but God come from
heaven, who modeled his own manhood on himself in keeping with his
mighty Godhead, as scripture says, “The Word became flesh.” 100

29,6 But as to “The Word became flesh,” to avoid giving the impres-
sion that he was man first, and Christ came to a man, the holy Gospel
put “Word” first, and then confessed the flesh with, “The Word was made
flesh.” (7) For it did not say, “The flesh was made Word.” This shows that
the Word came from heaven first, formed his own flesh from the holy
Virgin’s womb, and perfectly fashioned his entire human nature in his
image. (8) For even if scripture says, “The Word was made flesh,” this is
not because the Word was turned into flesh and the Word became flesh
[in this way], or because the Godhead was transformed into flesh; at his
coming, with his Godhead, the divine Word took his own humanity.

30,1 And scripture says that “Jesus increased in maturity and wisdom.” 101
Flow could he “increase” [in wisdom] without a human mind? — I have
said this already. And God’s holy prophet Isaiah also witnesses to this
text by saying, “Behold, my beloved servant in whom 1 am well pleased
shall understand.” 102 (2) And do you see that “shall understand” refers
to a perfect human nature? Without a mind, no one can “understand”;
and the text does not apply to Godhead. For that which is understanding
itself cannot be in need of understanding, and that which is Wisdom itself
cannot be in need of wisdom; “He shall understand” is to be taken of the
human mind.

99 Cf. Ps 15:10.

100 John 1:14.

101 Luke 2:52.

102 Cf. Isa 42:1.

6o8

APOLLINARLANS

30.3 And tell me, why was he hungry? If he was just flesh, how could
he pay any attention to hunger? And if he was made only of body and
soul, and his soul did not have the rationality of the mind which is the
thought of the human nature — I don’t mean wicked thought, but thought
directed towards lawful need which is appropriate to his Godhead — then
how could he be hungry or have a conception of hunger? (4) Tell me, how
could he be grieved, if his soul was without a mind and reason? If a soul
is irrational or if there is flesh without soul, it is not subject to grief or
sorrow. (5) And I can think of many < replies* > which I should make to
him. < For we must* > realize that quibbles are not to the point and that,
if anything, they alarm those who want to think too far, and not measure
themselves by the measure the most holy apostle recommended to us,
“not to think more highly than we ought to think.” 103

31,1 They also confront us with certain words of scripture, “We have the
mind of Christ,” 104 and say, “Do you see that the mind of Christ is different
from our minds?” How simple people are! Each one leans in the direction
he wants to go, and where he appears to be clever, turns out to be inept.
(2) For though I am “inept in speech — but not in knowledge,” 105 as the
scripture says — and though I am very limited, and I admire these people
even when they attack the mind because of words, I am baffled by their
notion because they interpret this text as proof of what is simply such
sterile contentiousness on their part. For the thing (i.e., 2 Cor. 11:16) has
no meaning with any bearing on this position.

31.3 For Paul says, “We have the mind of Christ.” 106 But we need to ask
what “Christ” means to them, or what the “mind of Christ” is. And here
they show that they understand Christ as one thing, and his divine nature
as something else. (4) For if they suppose that Christ [himself] replaces the
[human] mind, and yet call only Christ’s human nature “Christ,” they are
trying to lead me into one more dispute. And plainly, it is < not > [only]
after the incarnation that he is described as the divine Word and Son
of God. (5) < But > though the texts about him that call him Christ came
earlier, even before the incarnation, it is in the incarnation that they are

103 Rom 12:3.

104 1 Cor 2:16. At Leontius Adversus Fraudes Apollinistarum 141 (Lietzmann Fr. 155,
p. 249) Timotheus is represented as quoting Apollinarius: “Christ is a living God-animated
body and divine spirit in flesh, a heavenly mind of which we are all partakers as it is said,
“We have the mind of Christ." With this, however, cf. 34,3-4.

105 2 Cor 11:6.

106 1 Cor 2:16.

APOLLINARIANS

609

fulfilled. For his Godhead does not lack the name of Christ, and his incar-
nation and human nature cannot be mentioned without such a name, as
the scripture says, “Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven,
that is, to bring Christ down. Or who shall descend into the deep, that is,
to bring Christ up from the dead.” 107

31,6 And the apostle, in turn, says, “that they may know thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 108 Now “Thou hast sent”
means “[sent] from on high”; and yet it cannot be separated from the
words of Peter, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved among you by signs
and wonders, whom God hath anointed with the Holy Spirit,” 109 and texts
of this sort.

32,1 And next, in their desire to confront me with ideas that are in
every way contentious, my very beloved brethren also preach, not without
daring, that his divine nature has suffered, because of the text which says,
“If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 110
(2) But some of Apollinarius’ disciples, who, I suppose, do not understand
this, want to invent something else by putting this forward with the rest.
I would be surprised if Apollinarius himself says anything of the kind.

For it is no surprise if the sacred scripture says that the Lord of glory has
been crucified. (3) We confess that his human nature too is the Lord of
glory. The humanity is not separate from the Godhead, if we understand
each of them properly and see the whole in combination as one person
and one perfection. (4) For we preach and believe that Christ can suffer
[but] not that he (i.e., the human nature) suffered for himself, or that the
Sufferer and the Lord are different persons, or that the Godhead suffered.
Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered while his Godhead remained unaltered
and impassible and yet, while remaining impassible, suffered in the flesh.
(5) For if Christ died for us — and truly died — his divine nature did not
die. He died in the flesh — as the scripture says, “He was put to death in
the flesh but quickened by the Spirit,” 111 and again, “Christ hath suffered
for us in the flesh.” 112

107 Rom 10:6-7.

108 John 17:3.

109 Acts 2:22.

110 1 Cor 2:8. At Antirrheticus 24, p. 179 (Apollinarius Fragment 48, Lietzmann p. 215)
Gregory of Nyssa quotes Apollinarius as saying that Christ is called “Lord of glory” because
he is an “incarnate mind . . . who did not become flesh in the Virgin hut passed through her
in transit and was before the ages.”

111 1 Pet 3:18.

1 Pet 4:1.

112

6io

APOLLINARLANS

32,6 It is remarkable that we confess that he truly suffered and yet is
truly impassible. For because of its changelessness, impassibility and co-
essentiality with the Father, his divine nature did not suffer; his flesh suf-
fered, and yet the divine nature was not separate from the human nature
in its suffering. (7) For the divine and the human nature were together
when Christ suffered in his flesh on the cross yet remained impassible in
his divine nature, so that we are no longer justified only in his flesh but
also in his Godhead, and our salvation is effected in both ways, in the
divine nature and in the flesh.

32,8 For Christ was no mere man for us, but a subsistent divine Word
< become > incarnate, and God truly made man for us. Thus our hope is
not in man but in the Godhead; and our God is not a God who suffers, but
an impassible God. Still, he has not wrought our salvation without suffer-
ing, but by dying for us and offering himself to the Father as a sacrifice
for our souls, “cleansing us with his blood,” 113 "tearing up the handwrit-
ing against us and nailing it to the cross,” 114 as the scripture everywhere
teaches us.

33,1 And if the need arises, I shall have a great deal to say in proof of
this. Elsewhere, in explaining this view of our sure salvation, I have said
that if a garment is stained by a flow of blood, the blood has not stained
the body of the wearer, but the stain on the garment is not considered
the garment’s, but the wearer’s. (2) In the same way the passion did the
divine nature no harm but was suffered in the human nature, and yet not
only as the human nature’s; otherwise the scripture, “Cursed be everyone
whose hope is in man” 115 might be applicable to the work of salvation. It
was also counted as the Godhead’s though the Godhead does not suffer,
so that the salvation of the passion might be credited to God’s holy church
in the Godhead.

33,3 And again, no pedant need wish to debate anything but the
point of the comparison. Not every parable in the scripture is to be taken
wholesale. For example, ‘Judah is a lion’s whelp” 116 is said because the
animal is the strongest and kingliest, not because it is irrational and a
predator. (4) So with the garment. It is not put on and taken off; “He put
on majesty” once, as the scripture says, but the second time “He put it on,

113 Heb 9:22.

114 Col 2:14.

115 Jer 17:5.

116 Gen 49:9.

APOLLINARIANS

6ll

and was girded with strength,” 117 in fulfillment of the most holy apostle’s
words, "Christ dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him.” 118

33,5 But in spite of this my brethren would like to cite “We have the
mind of Christ” 119 to prove their point to me. However, going by what
they say in explanation of the subject, they lead me to suspect that they
may have understood “mind” [in the text] as something different from
“Christ.” (6) Yet if they do not think that the Godhead is separate from the
humanity but that there is [only] one person, what further thing will this
so-called “mind of Christ” be? Is the divine Word all by itself in the human
nature, and without a human mind, as they say? Does [the divine] Christ
have a “mind” other than the nature of his Godhead? Or is every difficult
word used loosely, as proof of what goes on within us?

34,1 In fact every godly person lives, not in accordance with the mind
of man, but in accordance with the “mind of Christ.” He is filled by Christ
in understanding, thinks righteously like Christ, lives in Christ by the con-
fession [of him], is preserved in well-doing for Christ’s sake. For this is
the “mind of Christ,” which is capable of being in us without confining
Christ in an enclosure. (2) The Father, the Son and < the > Holy Spirit are
everywhere, and Christ is in us spiritually if we become worthy of him,
since no space encloses him, his Father and his Holy Spirit. By the power
of his Godhead he is in all things, and yet is intermingled with nothing,
because of his incommunicable and incomparable essence, and pure and
infinite Godhead.

34.3 But when the apostle said, “We have the mind of Christ,” 120 what
should we think he means? Did Paul have his own human < mind >? Or
did he become filled with Christ’s mind and lose his own, but have the
mind of Christ instead of his own? Hardly! Each of his hearers would agree
that he had his own mind but that he was filled with Christ’s, who had
equipped him with piety, knowledge, and God’s heavenly way of life.

34.4 If, therefore, he was filled with Christ’s mind while having his
own, this means that, if we have to say it, Christ himself, the Word, was
“mind” — for some have seen fit to call God “mind.” (5) I, though, do not
regard our mind as an entity — nor does any son of the church — but as
a form of activity which God has bestowed upon us, and which is in us.
But I do call Christ an entity, as all the faithful confess that he is; and

117 Ps 92:1.

118 Rom 6:9.

119 1 Cor 2:16.

120 1 Cor 2:16.

6l2

APOLLINARLANS

I confess that he is God and truly the Lord, begotten of the Father, Perfect
of Perfect, Light of Light, and God of God. (6) But still, going by the same
text, He who is mind in himself — as the holy apostle’s teaching about
him is “We have the mind of Christ” — had his own mind. And they to
whom Paul testified had their own minds, and in turn were filled with
the Mind, Christ, since his grace is capable of coming to fruition in them
in this way.

35,1 Hence, on the exact analogy, it will make no difference if we
assume this of Christ as well. For surely, even though Christ, who is mind
in himself, shared the human mind as he shared flesh and blood and had
the human soul, he was not the prisoner of the [human] mind. (2) For
if the apostle who had the human mind as his own by nature, and the
mind [of Christ] by participation in the gift, benefit and grace, no longer
lived in accordance with his own mind but was directed, by a guidance
transcending nature, by the mind of Christ, how much more the divine
Word! He possessed all perfection in himself and was absolute perfec-
tion, absolute God, absolute power, absolute light, and the Completer, or
rather, Perfecter, both of the mind and of the whole body, and wrought
our salvation in all things by his advent in the flesh.

35>3 We must reject this text, then, as having no significance for this
subject, and put aside the denial that all things, apart from sin, are com-
plete in Christ. For the Word truly did all things at his coming, and brought
the scriptural prophecies of himself to fulfillment — as the scripture says,
“Behold, the Virgin shall conceive,” 121 and so on. He was conceived truly
and not in appearance, was truly engendered in a womb. He truly lived
in the flesh with flesh, true soul and true mind, and all true human char-
acteristics except for sin. (4) He was truly born of a virgin womb — and
truly of a holy virgin, not by the seed of men — with true flesh and soul
and, as 1 said, a true mind. He was truly with his parents on their journey,
truly lay in a manger in swaddling clothes, was borne in Mary’s arms,
went down to Egypt and was brought back from Egypt and returned to
Nazareth, (5) went to the Jordan and was baptized by John and tempted
by the devil. He truly chose disciples and preached the kingdom of
heaven, just as everything about him is true — his betrayal by Judas and
arrest by Jews, being brought to Pontius Pilate and condemned to death
by him, his crucifixion and saying, "1 thirst, give me to drink.” 122 He truly

121 Isa 7:14.

122 Cf. John 19:28.

APOLLINARIANS

613

accepted vinegar with gall, tasted it, and accepted nothing else to drink.
He was truly nailed to the cross and cried, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani.” 123
He truly bowed his head and expired. His body was truly removed and
taken away, truly wrapped in a shroud by Joseph and laid in a tomb, truly
secured with a stone.

35,6 He descended to hades in his Godhead with his soul, bravely
and mightily freed the prisoners, truly ascended the third day, the divine
Word with his holy soul, with the captives he had rescued; he was truly
raised with body, soul and all his human nature. He spent the forty days
with his disciples, truly blessed them on the Mount of Olives, and truly
ascended into heaven while his disciples watched him truly taken up to
the clouds.

He took his seat and truly sits at the Father’s right hand in his body
itself and his Godhead, in his perfect human nature itself, (7) in which he
has united the whole in one, and as a single spiritual perfection — seated
in glory as God, who will truly come to judge the quick and the dead. And
nothing has been altered; all perfect things have been perfectly done in
him, in their perfection.

364 I believe that this will do for these questions, and judge that now
is the time to drop the subject. But again, I must also give some indication
of the nonsense I have been told < by > those who say such things. I can-
not believe that this is what they say, but I still shall not leave out what
I have been told. (2) For some have even dared to report that certain of
them, in their turn, say that Mary had relations with her husband Joseph
after Jesus’ birth. But I would be surprised if even they say this. (3) There
are people who do, and I have counted them as other schismatics, and
by request have written a letter to certain persons in Arabia against the
people who say this. (4) But I have said a great deal about this in treating
of them in that letter. With God’s help I shall add it next, in a chapter of
its own.

36,5 Others have reported the venerable man as saying that we will live
for a thousand years in the first resurrection, doing the same things we do
now — observing the Law and the other ordinances, for example, engaging
in all the activities of daily life, and taking part in marriage, circumcision
and the rest. I simply can’t believe this of him, but some have reported
him as having said this, and insisted on it.

123 Matt 17:46.

614

APOLLINARLANS

36,6 And it is plain that this millennium has been described in John’s
Revelation, and that the book has been believed by the majority, and the
orthodox. But when the majority and orthodox read the book they know
about the spiritual meanings, and take its spiritual statements as true
< in the spiritual sense >, and believe that they must be given a profound
explanation. For this is not the only profound utterance in Revelation;
there are many others besides.

37,1 But for brevity’s sake I merely mention the matter for now, to
show the godly that, whenever one wants to overstep the bounds of God’s
holy church and the apostles’ faith and teaching < which determine Chris-
tians’* > hope, his mind will finally be turned, by the brief, quick mention
in passing of the one subject in his momentary, chance thought, (2) to
many pieces of nonsense and shaky speculations — unsuitable and strange
disputes, and, as the apostle has said, “endless genealogies.” 124 (3) Anyone
with sense can see that this is a very simple matter requiring no explana-
tion; this sort of wisdom and subject for argument needs no investiga-
tion. (4) If we are raised to be circumcised again, why haven’t we been
circumcised before? In this regard, then, the ancients managed < to do >
something more important than we, since they realized what perfection
is, and were perfected in advance with what will be perfection then.

37,5 What becomes of the words of the apostle, “If ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing,” 125 and, “All ye that are justified by the Law
are fallen from grace?” 126 What about the Lord’s words, “For in the resur-
rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are equal unto
the angels?” 127 (6) On the other hand, “Ye shall sit at the table < of the
kingdom > of my Father eating and drinking,” 128 and, “when I drink it new
with you in the kingdom of heaven,” 129 with the additional word, “new,”
and the phrase, "at the table of the kingdom,” mean something different.
(7) I myself agree with this, since I have learned from the sacred scriptures
that there is a partaking of immortal food and drink. Of these it is said,
“Eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, neither have entered into the
heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.” 130

124 1 Tim 1:4.

125 Gal 5:2.

126 Gal 5:4.

127 Luke 20:35-36.

128 Luke 22:30.

129 Mark 14:25.

130 1 Cor 2:9.

APOLLINARIANS

615

38,1 Apollinarius though, says that we partake of the material pleasures
first, in the millennium, without labor and grief, but that after the millen-
nium we partake of the things of which “eye hath not seen and ear hath
not heard” was said. 131 (2) But this is contrary to the whole view of scrip-
ture. For if “The Law made no one perfect,” 132 but we are commanded to
observe the Law after our resurrection, [this is a contradiction]. 133 And if
the “holy Law” 134 which was given by the Lord through Moses “was our
conductor to Christ” 135 because of its inferiority to the things which are
perfected, 136 (3) but < is abolished > because Christ, the Perfect and the
Lord, has come and received the holy bride and church from the conduc-
tor of its tutees, that is, of the faithful — and if we have recognized “Jesus,”
the greater and the “Finisher,” 137 through the conductor’s Law — how can
their argument prove to be anything but a sign of shallow thinking and
silliness, when they say such things as that (4) a conductor is needed again
after the perfection of Christ, so that we may return to the “beginning”
“of the rudiments” 138 and the teaching, and of “the laying on of hands,” 139
as the scripture says. But the apostle tells us plainly, as though < he
meant > the Old Testament and the Law, that “That which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” 140

38.5 For he says, “The priesthood being changed, there is made of
necessity a change also of the Law.” 141 But if the Old Testament has been
changed and the New renewed, who can have the audacity to bring the
Old back into use and the relegate the New to obsolescence, thereby pre-
paring us to “fall from grace,” 142 and attempting to turn us away from the
“profit” 143 of Christ?

38.6 But I have made these distinctions verbally in short compass, in
the belief that this, again, is enough. Because of the extensiveness of the

131 This teaching is attributed to Apollinarius at Basil Ep. 265,2; Greg. Naz. Ep. 102.12;
Carmen Hist. I De Se Ipso 30; 179; Jer. Com. In Isa. XVIII, Prefatio.

132 Heb 7:19.

133 This insertion, and the one below, are devices used to divide an otherwise unman-
ageably long sentence. Holl tentatively suggests < uto? crra 0 v] acrai xoOro > at this point.

134 Rom 7:12.

135 Gal 3:24.

136 Cf. Heb 9:11.

137 Heb 12:2.

138 Heb 5:12.

139 Heb 8:1.

140 Heb 8:13.

141 Heb 7:12.

142 Gal 5:4.

143 Gal 5:2.

6i6

ANTIDICOMARIANS

work let us go on to the rest, beloved, calling, on God for aid as usual, on
the subject of the rest, and in their description and refutation.

Against Antidicomarians 1 58, but 78 of the series

1,1 Certain other problems have been caused, especially in Arabia, by
this sect — which some call the sect of the Dimoerites, or the sect which
confesses Christ’s human nature 2 without a mind — and they have been
referred to my modest self by some of the godly. (2) And first I have already
written a letter on this subject. But to keep to my order of the enumera-
tion [of sects] I shall discuss this one here too, < by inserting > the letter
in its entirety, with the appropriate additions or omissions.

1,3 As though they had a grudge against the Virgin and desired to
cheapen her reputation, certain Antidicomarians, inspired by some envy
or error and intending to sully men’s minds, have dared to say that St.
Mary had relations with a man after Christ’s birth, I mean with Joseph
himself. (4) And as I have already mentioned, it is said that the claim has
been made by the venerable Apollinarius himself, or some of his disciples.
Indeed I doubt it 3 but I have to speak about those who are saying this.
But so as not to involve myself in a second hard task I subjoin the letter
to Arabia which I have mentioned. It is as follows:

2.1 Greetings in the Lord from Epiphanius, least of bishops, to my most
honored Masters and beloved children and brothers in Arabia who share my
orthodox faith, clergy, laity and catechumens!

2.2 There is reason to wonder at present, and reason not to wonder. There
is reason to wonder, since all things are being fulfilled in our generation, and
reason not to wonder, since they must be fulfilled. For day after day we are
now increasingly faced with the speculation of human reasonings and fan-
cies, sophistical in its nature and growing worse, which deserts the apostolic
doctrine, as the most holy apostle foretold, “Many shall depart from sound
doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrines of devils,” 4 and so on. (3) For
if it is possible to look for evil ways and think them up, men exert themselves
< in the search > for these, rather than obeying the commandment which

1 The bulk of this Sect consists of Epiphanius’ Letter to Arabia, which is quoted entire.
The sources of his information were oral, chiefly members of the groups to whom the
letter is addressed.

2 Holl opokoyoua^i;, MSS 6vopa^opevv)i;.

3 Drexl and MSS 0 xcd dpipipdXkco, 7i£pi Se . . . Holl dfx<}H| 3 dXA.c<) <ei outcoi; touto keysix

4 1 Tim 4:1.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

617

bids them seek the good and acceptable, and < the injunction >, “Let thy
speech be seasoned with salt, that it may give grace to the hearers.’’ 5 6 7

2.4 And if we wonder why it is that new ills arise for us each day, we our-
selves shall be like the uninstructed, who pay no heed to the sacred, prophetic
words. These things must be fulfilled. “When the Son of Man cometh, shall he
find the faith on earth?” 5 must be fulfilled in all parts of the faith. (5) For
where has “the mind of man that is bent on evil from his youth” 1 got to?
Which articles of the faith has it not destroyed? In which works has poor
judgment not marred the usefulness of the seemliest writers, of a rationality
such that it ought to be reflecting on godly things and making every effort
to add to them, ( even if it should do so contrary to their nature ) rather than
forcibly turning truths into impieties, to their detriment.

3,1 For finally, since all that is blasphemous and without the Holy Spirit
has been accomplished in our generation, they are turning to other, new
blasphemies. (2) For some blaspheme the Father, the God and creator of
all — those who are said to be Gnostics and the so-called Marcionites and
Archontics in their turn, and their companions the Manichaeans, who
have been named with entire appropriateness by a righteous providence of
God, and < bear > the name of madness. (3) All of these, along with further
sects — I mean of Cainites, Sethians, Melchizedekians, Colorbasians, Cerdo-
nians and the rest — < venture > to blaspheme the Father of all by denying
that he is < the > God who has spoken in the Law and the prophets, and
that he is rightly worshiped by all creatures as their maker and artificer.
(4) Together with his worship they try also to do away with his sovereignty,
and deny the God who exists while, by their false thinking, imagining one
who does not, so that they are deprived of the true God and do not find the
one they imagine.

3.5 For it is in this way that foolishness, and the seed of the devil’s words,
is wont to cause such disturbance and confusion, and with blasphemous
thoughts incite the minds of created human beings to war <on> their Mas-
ter with clumsy conjectures and denials of God.

3.6 But while avoiding this, some in their turn have dared to proceed
to other evils by the denial of their Master who alone redeemed them, the
only-begotten Child Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, the truly exis-
tent Son — begotten of the Father without beginning and not in time, forever

5 Cf. Phil 4:8; Col 4:6; Eph 4:29.

6 Luke 18:8.

7 Gen 8:21.

6i8

ANTIDICOMARIANS

of the Father and with the Father, begotten incomprehensibly and without
defilement, co-essential with the Father and not different from the Father.
( 7 ) Some, again, have gone mad and bark at their own Master like rabid
dogs — as the Jews did at the first, and have been called “dumb dogs ” 8 for
not knowing him. They were awarded this name by the prophet, as is plain to
see, < because of> their shameless rage at the Lord and his coming. ( 8 ) For
they say that mad dogs are called “dumb” because they are left toothless by
their mind on its departure.

4,1 For dogs are like this when they go mad. Though they once knew their
master, his children, his household, all the householder’s other kin, when the
madness takes them these persons’ faces seem different to them, and they
attack even their owner’s kinsfolk, in whose honor they once wagged their
tails, and to whose ways they once submitted. ( 2 ) When those who were
awaiting the coming of Christ beheld their Master’s arrival — though they
were prepared to receive the bridegroom, boasted of having seen the proph-
ets, professed to obey their sacred oracles, and covenanted with Moses, “Be
thou [for us] to the Lord ,” 9 and, “All that the Lord saith unto thee we will
hear and do’’ 10 — [nonetheless] when they saw their Master’s arrival they
did not know the appearance and marks of the truth which the prophets
before him had portrayed, depicted, proclaimed and pointed to before his
incarnation, and at once said to him, first, “Who is this that speaketk blas-
phemies ?” * 11 ( 3 ) But on another occasion they shamelessly ventured to say
that he had a demon, and did not blush to call him a Samaritan as well.
( 4 ) Finally, as I have said, they set on him like mad dogs, nailed his hands
< and struck him in the face*>, as a dog in its madness always fastens < on
the person before it* > and attacks his hands, and is not ashamed to scratch
the faces of its owners.

4,5 They gave their own Lord up to crucifixion; and of the prophets, the
household of that same Master, they sawed one in half, stoned another, and
slew another with the sword. ( 6 ) But their successors, the new Jews after them,
are now behaving in the same way. The actual Jews by birth denied him; and
those who, utterly mad and crack-brained, are now denying the truth of the
Son’s perfect relation to the Father, maintain without intermission that he is
a creature and something made, and different from the Father.

8 Isa 56:40.

9 Cf. Exod 18:19.

10 Deut 5:27.

11 Luke 5:21.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

6ig

5.1 Others in turn have abandoned those blasphemous doctrines, and
have still, as it were, seen the sight surpassing the nature of heaven itself,
visited the heavenly realms, and pried into them. They make their arrogant
announcement and confident affirmation as though they had come from the
heaven, and banish the Holy Spirit from the Godhead. ( 2 ) They have not
denied the Father or the Son’s relation to him, but they go by another route to
ensure the complete fulfillment of the prophecy, “Faith hath failed from their
lips .’’ 12 ( 3 ) For what can this mean but that now — as though they had the
authority — instead of being commanded by God they wish to command God
about the Holy Spirit, who is not different from the Father and the Son, who
is of the same Godhead, and who cannot possibly be alien to the Godhead?
For they shamelessly say that the Spirit is alien to God, a servant, a creature,
of recent origin, and something made, and contrive to get hold of anything
else that is shameful, as an opinion of him.

5.4 Thus, because of its incurable wound of unbelief, the world of our day
has inclined more < and more to evil*>. And that the wickedness which is
destroying humanity through perversity, ignorance and unbelief may leave
no stone unturned, an idle, foolish notion has diverted those who have, as it
were, escaped the blasphemy of the holy Trinity, to other things, leaving no
one’s sin undetected.

5.5 For I hear that someone has a new notion about the holy, ever-virgin
Mary, and dares to cast a blasphemous suspicion on her, so that our genera-
tion will be exactly like a dangerous serpent and poisonous snake Lurking in
a dark den and striking everyone with its bites — one near the face, another
near the heel, another near the hand — ( 6 ) so that no one can escape the bite
of unbelief. Though one suppose he has escaped it in one way he does not
avoid the poison in another, while one whose faith is sound in one respect is
exposed to some other form of harm.

6.1 Why this ill will? Why so much impudence? Isn’t Mary’s very name
(i.e., “Virgin") a testimony, doesn’t it convince you, you trouble-maker? Who,
and in which generation, has ever dared to say St. Mary’s name and not
add “Virgin” at once when asked? The marks of excellence show from the
titles of honor themselves. ( 2 ) For the righteous received the honors of their
titles appropriately for each and as it became them. “Friend of God ” 13 was
added to the name, “Abraham, ” and will not be detached. The title, “Israel, ”
was awarded to “Jacob” and will not be changed. To the apostles the title,

12 Jer 7:28.

13 Jas 2:23.

620

ANTIDICOMARIANS

“Boanerges," or “sons of thunder/’ was given and wilt not be discarded. And
St. Mary was given the title, “Virgin, ’’ and it will not be altered, for the holy
woman remained undefiled “Doth not nature itself teach you ?’’ 14 Oh, this
new madness, these new troubles!

6,3 There are many other things which the fathers did not venture to
say in times gone by. Now, however, one blasphemes Christ’s incarnation by
talking heresy about the Godhead itself, while another considers the entire
matter of the incarnation defective; another is troubled about the resurrec-
tion of the dead, and someone else < by another > point. ( 4 ) And in a word,
woe to our troubled generation with its salvation in peril, swamped on every
side by the wicked second sowings of the devil’s sick fancies and heretical
reasonings! ( 5 ) How dare they < so degrade * > the undefiled Virgin who was
privileged to become the Son’s habitation, and was chosen for this from all
the myriads of Israel, so that something deemed worthy to be a vessel and
dwelling place is to become a mere sign of child-bearing?

7,1 For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing
to say that she had marital relations after the Savior’s birth. And I am not
surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures
well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after
another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the
truth out of his own head. ( 2 ) To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted
to Joseph 15 — lots having compelled her to take this step — she was not
entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. ( 3 ) He was called
her husband because of the Law, but it is plainly follows from the Jewish
tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. ( 4 ) It was
for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come — [a wit-
ness] that Christ’s incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested,
as without a man’s seed < but> truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

7,5 For how could such an old man , 16 who had lost his first wife so many
years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but
the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of
the man surnamed Panther. ( 6 ) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of
Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the
Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear . 17 ( 7 ) His firstborn

14 1 Cor 14:14.

15 Cf. Protevangelium of James 9.1.

16 Cf. Protevangelium of James 9.2.

17 Cf. Mark 6:3; John 19:25.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

621

son was James, whose surname was Oblias, or “wall ,” 18 and who was also
surnamed “The Just” and was a nazirite, or “holy man. ” ( 8 ) He was the Jirst to
receive the episcopal throne , 19 the Jirst to whom the Lord entrusted his throne
on earth. ( 9 ) He was also called the Lord’s brother, as the apostle agrees
by saying somewhere, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord’s brother, ” 20 and so on. But he is called the Lord’s brother not by nature
but by grace, because of being brought up with him. ( 10 ) For because she
had been betrothed to Joseph Mary appeared to be the wife of a husband,
but she had no sexual relations with him. For this reason the degree of the
kinship of Joseph’s sons to the Savior was called, or rather, regarded as, that
of brotherhood.

7,11 Similarly Joseph himself is held by dispensation to be in the position
of a father, though he had had no part in the fleshly generation of the Savior.
Thus Luke the evangelist says of the Savior himself that he was “the son of
Joseph, as was supposed ” 21 and Mary too said to him the Gospel according
to Luke, “Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing .’’ 22 ( 12 ) Who,
then, can call Joseph the Lord’s father when he had no responsibility for his
generation, especially when the incarnation took place without a man’s seed?
But by the dispensation of providence this is how matters fell out.

8,1 Joseph begot James when he was somewhere around forty years old.
After him he had a son named Joses — then Simeon after him, then Judah,
and two daughters, one named Mary and one, Salome; and his wife died.
( 2 ) And many years later, as a widower of over eighty, he took Mary. So
we are told in the Gospel, for it says, “Mary, his espoused wife ;” 23 it didn’t
say, “married wife. ” And again, in another passage it says, “And he knew
her not .” 24 ( 3 ) One can only wonder at all < the allegations * > 25 of those
who look for wicked allegations, who < strive* > to discover the causes which
need no discovery and to investigate the uninvestigable, but who turn from
the essentials to foolish questions, so that we may surely catch the plague
of every kind of unbelief and blasphemy because of the dishonoring of the
saints.

18 Cf. Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. 3.23.7.

19 Cf. Clem. Horn. Ep. dementis Ad Jacobum 1.

20 Gal 1:19.

21 Luke 3:23.

22 Luke 2:48.

23 Matt 1:18.

24 Matt 1:25.

25 Holl: <7rpo9ac7i£ovTcu> oi ■Kpocpa.tjev; Ovjpcipevoi 7row]po«; xai <aT:ouSa^ovTEp>, MSS olp oi
TTpoq^daei^ 0 v]pa)VTai oi 7 rovyjpo(.

622

ANTIDICOMARIANS

8,4 In the first place, the course of nature entirely confutes them. To begin
with, an old man of over eighty did not take a virgin as a sexual partner;
she was committed to his protection. Secondly, he himself was surely “just ”; 26
and when he had heard that that which was in her was “of the Holy Spirit ” 2,7
he would not have dared to keep wanting her after such a providence,
< and > use the vessel that had contained him whom heaven and earth can-
not contain because of his transcendent glory. (5) Even if today many of the
faithful strive to remain virgin in his name, and pure and continent, wasn’t
Joseph more faithful? And Mary herself who, as scripture says, “pondered
all things in her heart .” 26 After a dispensation of that sort, of such great-
ness and Importance, < how could it not be wrong> for an elderly man to
have relations once more, with a pure and honored virgin, a vessel which had
contained the Uncontainable and had received such a mystery of a heavenly
sign and man’s salvation?

9,1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a
starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the Savior’s birth!
Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up
and give them! But they can’t show them because she was still a virgin and,
perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (2) If she had ever born children
even though she was always with the Savior himself, her children too would
be said to be with < him >.

But the text, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking
thee ,” 29 misleads them. (3) Besides, they do not know the earlier passage,
“His brethren believed < not > on him . 20 As I myself grow older and wonder
at the triviality of the things in the sacred scriptures — I can tell you, as I
become fully acquainted with them I thank God for taking the precaution to
prove the truth of every text in the sacred scripture by the seemingly trivial
words. (4) I always heard that James was called the Lord’s brother, and I
said in wonderment, “What’s the use of this?” But now I understand why the
sacred scripture said this beforehand. When we hear, “Lo, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” (5) let us by all means learn that
it is speaking of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary
whom she never had.

26 cf. Matt 1:19.

27 Matt 1:20.

28 Luke 2:19.

29 Matt 12:47.

30 John 7:5.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

623

For it was plain that, in comparison with the [years of] the Lord’s incar-
nation, James was the elder. ( 6 ) The scripture calls them brothers to con-
found [our opponents], and names James, Joses, Simeon, Judah, Salome and
Mary, so that they will learn whose son James is and by which mother, and
understand who is the elder.

Jesus was crucified in the thirty-third year of his incarnation, but it was
the twentieth year of Herod the son of Arc he laus. ( 10 , 1 ) For the Savior was
born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the thirty-third year of the first Herod, the son
of Antipater, which was the forty-second of the emperor Augustus. ( 2 ) And
at the age of two he was taken to Egypt by Joseph because of what the magi
had told him, since Herod was seeking < to destroy > the child.

10,3 King Herod died in the thirty-seventh year of his reign, but his son
Archelaus reigned for nine years after him. ( 4 ) And the work [of salvation]
was finished, and Jesus was crucified in the eighteenth year of Tiberius Cae-
sar; it was the twentieth year of Agrippa called “The Great," or Herod the
Younger, the son of Archelaus. ( 5 ) But nowhere have we heard that Joseph
fathered [more] sons. Indeed, he did not live many years after his return
from Egypt, for it was the Savior’s fourth year, while Joseph was over eighty-
four when he arrived from Egypt. ( 6 ) And Joseph survived for another eight
years; and in Jesus’ twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke,
he was sought for on their Journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found
on the road.

10,7 But Joseph died during these years, and Jesus was no longer brought
up by Joseph, but in Joseph’s home. This is why the Gospel can no longer say
that his father and mother and brethren came, but says, “Lo, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. ” 31 ( 8 ) Nor did it say that his father
and brothers had spoken to him, when they said to him in Galilee, “No one
that doeth these things would be in secret; if thou doest these things, show
thyself .” 32 It said that his brothers had spoken to him; Joseph was no longer
alive in the flesh. ( 9 ) But then at his perfecting itself, when the Savior was on
the cross, the Lord turned, as the Gospel according to John tells us, “and saw
the disciple whom he loved, and said to him of Mary, “Behold thy mother”.
And to her he said, “Behold thy son .” 33 ( 10 ) If Mary had children and her
husband was alive, why did he entrust Mary to John and John to Mary? And

31 Matt 12:47.

32 Cf. John 7:4.

33 John 19:26-27.

624

ANTIDICOMARIANS

why not rather entrust her to Peter’? Why not to Andrew, Matthew and Bar-
tholomew? But it is plain that he entrusted her to John because of virginity.

10,11 For < he says >, “Behold thy mother, ” even though physically she was
not John’s mother; [he says this] to show that <as> the originator of vir-
ginity she was his mother, since the life began with her. ( 12 ) And lest it be
supposed that the work [of salvation] was appearance and not reality he
said this to John to teach him to honor his own mother, even though, physi-
cally speaking, John was not his kin; for the Lord was truly born of her in the
flesh. ( 13 ) For if she had not truly been the mother who bore him, he would
not have taken care to entrust the Ever-virgin to John — his mother because
of the incarnation, but undefiled in his honor and the wondrous vessel But
the Gospel says, “And from that day he took her unto his own home ." 34 But
if she had a husband, a home, children, she would return to her own home
and not to someone else’s.

11,1 But this must not be twisted to the harm of any who suppose that, by
a clumsy conjecture, they can find an excuse here to invent their so-called
“adoptive wives” and “beloved friends." The things done there were done
by dispensation, and the case is different from ail the other godly stringent
rules that ought to be observed. Indeed, when this had been done and John
had taken her to himself she was not yet Living with him. ( 2 ) If any think
</> am mistaken, moreover, Let them search through the scriptures and
neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not
she was buried — even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet,
nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply
kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds
into consternation.

11,3 For I dare not say — though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Per-
haps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces
of the holy and blessed Virgin. ( 4 ) In one passage Simeon says of her, “And
a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many
hearts may be revealed .” 35 And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, “And
the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she
was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the
dragon might not seize her .’’ 36 Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot

34 John 19:27.

35 Luke 2:35.

36 Cf. Rev 12:13-14.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

625

decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal But nei-
ther am I affirming that she died.

11.5 For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and Left it in sus-
pense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would
suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don ’t know; and [ even ] if
she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought! ( 6 ) Who
will choose, from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on
her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth with evil
intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl abuse at the holy Vir-
gin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel?

12,1 But if we need to take the matter up from another point of view, let’s
examine the findings of the naturalists. They say that a lioness never gives
birth but once, for the following reason. A lion is very fierce, grim of visage,
of extremely violent strength, and, as it were, the king of the other beasts.
( 2 ) A lioness conceives by one mate, but the implanted seed remains in the
womb for a full twenty-six months. Thus the cub comes to maturity inside
its mother because of the time, and already has all its teeth before it is born,
and its claws fully developed, and, as they call them, its “incisors, eye-teeth
and molars," and all the beast’s remaining features. ( 3 ) Thus while it is in
the belly it rakes it with its claws in the course of its upward and forward
movements and its other twists, and scrapes the wombs and ovaries that are
carrying it. And so, when the mother has come to birth, that very day her
belly becomes incapable of labor. ( 4 ) For the naturalists say that the ova-
ries and wombs are expelled with the cub, so that the lioness no longer feels
desire unless, perhaps, she is forced. And even if it should happen that she
is forced to mate, she can never conceive again because she has no wombs
or ovaries.

12.5 Now even this series of events has given me a notion, beneficial
rather than harmful, on the subject in question. ( 6 ) If Jacob says, “Judah is a
lion’s whelp,” 31 symbolically of Christ, and somewhere in John’s Revelation
it says, “Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, and the seed of David, hath
prevailed ” 38 — (when the Lord is compared to a lion it is not because of his
nature, but symbolically, and because of the kingliness of the beast, < the >
boldest, strongest, and in all other respects the handsomest of the animals.)
[If the Lord is a lion], then, I should call the mother who bore him a lioness;
( 7 ) how can any lion be born if the mother is not to be called a lioness? But

37 Gen 49:9.

38 Rev 5:5.

626

ANTIDICOMARIANS

a lioness does not conceive a second time. Therefore Mary never conceives
again; the holy Virgin cannot have had marital relations.

13.1 But let us look to other considerations too, to < make the truth hevi-
dent in every way* >; since it was always with him, the truth < was* > a fol-
lower of Jesus. “Jesus was called to a marriage, ” and “his mother < was >
there .’’ 39 And < nowhere > are his brothers mentioned, and nowhere Joseph.

< For he says >, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet
come ” 40 He didn’t say, “People, what have I to do with you?"

13.2 Mary Magdalene stood by the cross, and Mary the wife of Cleopas,
and Mary the mother of Rufus, and the other Mary, and Salome, and other
women. And it didn’t say, “Joseph was there” — or James the Lord’s brother,”

< who > died in virginity < at the age > of ninety-six. (3) No iron implement
had touched his head, he had never visited a bath house, had never eaten
meat . 41 He did not own a change of clothing and wore only a threadbare
linen garment, as it says in the Gospel, “The young man fled, and left the
cloth wherewith he was clad ” 42

13,4 John, James and James, these three, lived in virginity — the two sons
of Zebedee and James, who was the son of Joseph and the Lord’s brother
because he had lived with him, had been brought up with him, and had
the status of a brother because of Joseph’s only relationship to Mary, her
betrothal to him. (5) Only this James was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies
once a year 43 since he was a nazirite and a member of the priesthood. Thus
Mary was related to Elizabeth in two ways 44 and James was distinguished by
priesthood, since only the two tribes intermarried, the kingly with the priestly
and the priestly with the kingly. Thus long ago the head of the tribe of Judah,
Naason, took < the > ancient Elizabeth, Aaron’s daughter, to wife during the
exodus. (6) Hence many sects are unaware of <the> Savior’s earthly geneal-
ogy, and because of their puzzlement disbelieve, and suppose that they can
contradict the truth by saying “How could Mary, of the tribe of David and
Judah, be related to Elizabeth, of the tribe of Levi?”

14,1 James also wore the priestly diadem. And once he raised his hands
to heaven and prayed during a drought, and heaven immediately gave rain.

39 John 2:1-2.

40 John 2:4.

41 Cf. Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. 2.23.5-7.

42 Mark 14:52.

43 The basis of this is probably the notice at Eus. H. E. 2.23.6.

44 Cf. Julius Africanus Epistula Ad Aristidem, Reichardt, p. 54.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

627

He never put on a woolen garment , 45 From their continual kneeling before
the Lord with extreme piety, his knees grew as hard as camels’. (2) He was
no longer addressed by name; his name was “The Just.” He never washed in
the bath house, did not eat meat, as I have already said, and did not put on
a sandal. And a great deal could be said about James and his virtuous life.

14,3 You see, then, that Joseph’s home was most remarkable in every way.
For if Joseph’s sons knew the state of virginity and the practice of the nazir-
ites, how much more did the elderly and honorable Joseph know how to pre-
serve the Virgin in purity, and pay honor to the vessel in which humankind’s
salvation had once dwelt? “Doth not nature itself teach you ?” 46 (4) The man
was aged, very far advanced in years, and a man of standing, faithful char-
acter and pious demeanor. For the Gospel says, “From fear of God the man
sought to put her away privily .” 41

14,5 This James, the Lord’s brother and Joseph’s son, died in Jerusalem,
after living for about twenty-four years after the assumption of the Savior . 48
For at the age of ninety-six he was struck on the head with a fuller’s rod, was
thrown from the pinnacle of the temple (6) and fell without injury, but knelt
in prayer for those who had thrown him down and said, “Forgive them, for
they know not what they do .” 48 Meanwhile Simeon, his cousin but the son of
Cleopas, stood at a distance and said, “Stop! Why are you stoning the Just?
And look, he’s praying for you the best he can!” And this was the martyrdom
of James.

15,1 Now if Joseph’s son lived for so many years, how could his father
dare to abuse and insult a holy body in which God had dwelt, after he had
seen awesome sights, angels standing guard at the birth of the Son, singing
hymns from heaven and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace, good will toward men ?" 50 And the shepherds had come to the cavern
where Christ was born (2) and told these things, so many signs and wonders,
in the hearing of the aged Joseph, who was far advanced in years. (3) The
incarnate Christ’s human nature was taken from Mary’s body for us — the
body from which the holy and undefiled flesh was formed for us, in the Sav-
ior’s Godhead. As the angel Gabriel < says > in the relevant passage, “The
Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall

45 Cf. Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. 2.23.6.

46 1 Cor 11:14.

47 Cf. Matt 1:19.

48 Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. 2.23.16-18.

49 Luke 23:34.

50 Luke 2:13-15.

628

ANTIDICOMARIANS

overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God .” 51

15,4 Now how could Joseph dare to have relations with the Virgin Mary
who was of such, and so great, holiness? But even if she had sexual rela-
tions — and perish that thought! — what good would it do us to inquire into
this? Which is the better choice, to leave the matter to God, or to insist on
what is bad for us? Plainly, scripture has not told us that we may not have
eternal life, but will go to judgment, unless we believe that Mary had rela-
tions again. (5) It has, however, told us < to seek > what is good and righ-
teous, what is holy, “that we may give grace unto the hearers also .” 52 But
people have abandoned the essentials, things that relate to faith in the truth,
that are to the glory of God, and provide themselves with harmful things
wherever they can find them. How disgusting it is even to think of < them >,
especially as scripture says nothing of the sort.

16,1 For If the scripture said it, I would expound the proof-text truth< fully *>
and think nothing of it. Is marriage unholy, after all? Is the marriage bed
profane? Isn’t “the bed undefiled ?” 53 Is marriage debased? But prophets
and high priests refrain from it because their service is for a higher purpose.
(2) After Moses became a prophet he had no more relations with his wife, she
bore no more children, and he fathered no more. For he had adopted a way
of life which afforded more leisure for his Master. How could he remain on
Mount Sinai “for forty nights and forty days " 54 and still attend to his mar-
riage? Or how [else] could he ready for ministry to God in the wilderness for
forty years, and find the leisure for priesthood?

If he was married, how could be continually expound the mysteries and
converse with God? (3) For if the holy apostle speaks expressly of us, and says,
“<Let them be continent* > for a time, that they may be free for prayer ,” 55
how much more will the saying be true of prophets?

Moreover, Mary was a prophetess. (4) Scripture says, “He went in unto the
prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son. And the Lord said unto me,
Call his name, Spoil Speedily, Plunder Fiercely, “and so on . 55 (5) The mean-
ing here, however, is Gabriel’s visit to Mary, when he went forth to bring her

51 Luke 1:35.

52 Eph 4:29.

53 Heb 13:4.

54 Exod 24:18.

55 1 Cor 7:5.

56 Isa 8:3.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

629

the tidings that she would bear God’s Son, a Savior, for the world, not by the
seed of a man but through the Holy Spirit.

16,6 Moreover, Philip the evangelist had “four daughters that did proph-
esy ,” 51 but they prophesied because of the virginity that was vouchsafed
them. (7) Thecla too met St. Paul and dissolved her marriage, although her
betrothed was most handsome, the leading man in the town, extremely rich,
of excellent family, and very prominent. And yet the saint despised earthly
things to gain the heavenly . 58 (8) Now if these persons [did] these things,
how much more Mary, to whom the whole wondrous providence has come?
But where can I find ideas to benefit them? How can I dispel the darkness
of those who have spawned these dreadful doctrines, as the scripture says,
“He hath conceived pain and brought forth iniquity ?” 59 For these people
do indeed conceive the pain of sick fancies, and bring forth the iniquity of
blasphemies.

17,1 But no one should have those suspicions and say, in his attempt to
implant them within himself in a different way, “Why does the Gospel say,
'Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost before they came together?’ ” 60
Their coming together was expected, and this is why it said, ‘before they came
together.’ (2) Furthermore, the same Gospel says once more, in another pas-
sage, ‘She brought forth her son, the firstborn,’ and, ‘He knew her not until
she had brought forth her son, the firstborn.’ ” 61

17,3 And yet those who profess to distinguish between the senses of the
scriptures (i.e., literal, allegorical etc.) and try to meddle with the loftiest and
the deepest matters, do not know that the sense of this is as follows. (4) For
if Mary had given birth again, scripture should have given the other broth-
ers’ names too. But never fear, if the Only-begotten < is called “firstborn” >,
don’t worry, it is because he is the “firstborn of all creation .’’ 62 The Gospels
did not say, “She brought forth her firstborn, ” but, “He knew her not until
she had brought forth her son” — and it didn’t say, “her firstborn," but, “the
firstborn. ” (5) By “her son, ” scripture meant what had been born of her in the
flesh. But it didn’t add another “her” to the term, “firstborn," but said imply,
“firstborn. ”

57 Acts 21:9.

58 Acts of Paul and Thecla 7.10.

59 Ps 7:15.

60 Matt 1:18.

61 Matt 1:25.

62 Col 1:15.

630

ANTIDICOMARIANS

For he is the One the apostle calls, “firstborn of all creation” — not united
with creation but begotten before creation. ( 6 ) The apostle didn’t say, first-
created, ” but, “firstborn"; and the passage is divided for its better and sounder
interpretation by saying “firstborn” first, and then mentioning creation as
inferior. For “firstborn” is understood of the Son, but “creation” < was made >
through the Son. ( 7 ) Thus “She brought forth her son, the firstborn;’’ — but
not “her firstborn,” as though she was to bear another.

“And he knew her not.” For how could he know that a woman would
receive so much grace? Or how could he know that < the > Virgin would be
so highly glorified? (8) Fie knew that she was a woman by her appearance,
and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her
father, Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house
and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially
a woman, would be honored with such glory. ( 9 ) He did not know her, then,
until he had seen the wonder; he did not know how wondrous she was until
he had seen “that which was born of her .’’ 6,3 But when she gave birth he also
knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, “Hail,
thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee ." 64

18,1 It is Mary who is intimated by Eve, for she was symbolically given
the title, “mother of the living." For Eve was called “mother of the living ” 65
in that passage," and this after being told, “Earth thou art, and unto earth
shall thou return ” 66 following her transgression. And yet, it was a a won-
der that she received the great title after this transgression. ( 2 ) Physically
speaking, every birth of human beings on earth is from that Eve; but here life
itself has truly been born into the world of Mary, so that Mary brings forth
the Living One and becomes the mother of the Living. ( 3 ) Mary, then, was
mystically called the “mother of the living.” For “Who has given the woman
the wisdom < of weaving > and skill in embroidery ?” 67 was said of the two
women. The first wise woman, Eve, < was > the weaver of earthly garments
for Adam whose nakedness she had caused; for this task was assigned to her.
( 4 ) Since the nakedness was her fault, she had been given the task of cloth-
ing the physical body to hide its physical nakedness. But God’s assignment to
Mary was that she bear a lamb and sheep for us, and that, by his virtue, we

63 Luke 1:35.

64 Luke 1:28.

65 Gen 3:20.

66 Gen 3:19.

67 Job 38:36.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

631

receive a garment of immortality wisely made — as though, from his fleece —
from the glory of the lamb and sheep.

18,5 But there is another marvel to ponder in connection with these
women, Eve and Mary. Eve has become the occasion of human deaths, for
“Death entered into the world ” 68 through her. But Mary, through whom Life
was born for us, is the occasion of life. ( 6 ) And this is why the Son of God
came into the world; and “Where sin hath abounded, grace did much more
abound .” 69 And in the place from which death came, life got the start of it,
so that there might be Life in place of death. He who, in his turn, had become
our life through a woman, shut out the death that came from a woman.

18,7 And since Eve in Paradise fell into the sin of disobedience while still a
virgin, the obedience of grace in its turn has come through the Virgin, when
she was told of the descent from heaven, of the coming in the flesh and eter-
nal life. ( 8 ) For in Paradise God tells the serpent, “And I shall put enmity
between thee and her, and between thy seed, and her seed ”' 70 But there is
no instance of a woman’s seed < with an enmity toward the physical seed of
a snake* >, unless, as the riddle suggests, the “enmity” is taken to mean Eve’s
enmity towards the progeny of the snake itself, and of the devil who dwelt in
the snake, and his envy.

19,1 And in fact, the whole cannot have its complete fulfillment in Eve. But
it will truly be fulfilled in the holy Seed, the elect Seed, the unique Seed, the
Seed which originated from Mary alone, and not from union with a man. For
he came to “destroy" the “power of the dragon and crooked serpent which
flees ” 11 saying that it has taken the whole world captive. ( 2 ) And so the Only-
begotten came from a woman for the destruction of the serpent — that is, of
heresy, corruption and deceit, imposture and iniquity. ( 3 ) It is he who truly
“opens a mother’s womb .’’ 12 All the firstborn who have ever been bom — to
put it delicately — could not manage this; none but the Only-begotten, who
“opened a virgin’s womb.” That has been accomplished in him alone, and in
no one else.

19,4 But this 73 can also be seen from the subject itself. The expression,
[“mother of the living”], is to be understood of Mary, and I shall take the one
that says, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and

68 Cf. Rom 5:12.

69 Rom 5:20.

70 Gen 3:15.

71 Isa 27:1.

72 Cf. Luke 2:23 (Exod. 13:12).

73 That not all the statements in Gen. 2-3 are to be taken of Eve.

632

ANTIDICOMARIANS

shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh ,” 14 as a refer-
ence to the church. ( 5 ) The holy apostle also says, “This is a great mystery,
but I say it concerns Christ and the church .” 75 ( 6 ) And see the precision of
the scriptures! It says, “formed, ” 76 of Adam, but of Eve it no longer speaks of
being “formed," but of being “built.” For it says, “He took one of his sides and
built it into a wife for him ,” 11 to show that the Lord formed his body from
Mary, but the church has been built from his side itself — when his side was
pierced, and the mysteries of blood and water became atonements for us.

20,1 But in any case Joseph knew Mary, not with any knowledge of physi-
cal intimacy, not with the knowledge of intercourse — he knew her, and hon-
ored her whom God had honored. For he did not know how glorious she was
until he saw the Lord who was born of a woman. ( 2 ) And “Before they came
together she was found with child ” 18 is said to keep the argument of those
who think that the God-ordained mystery came from sexual commerce from
prevailing. For it meant, “before this thing that was expected took place —
but the thing did not take place. ” ( 3 ) For even if it was expected that the Vir-
gin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the
holy scripture shows us in advance, and confirms our notion, <to> convince

< us > that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man

< may > ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations — convincing us
in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was
unfounded. ( 4 ) For there is a similarity between “before they came together,”
which means that this was expected but did not happen, and, “Being a righ-
teous man he sought not to make her a public example but to put her away
privily ,” 19 which means that he would become evil if he made her a public
example, but he did not. In the same way the angel teaches him, “Fear not to
take unto thee Mary thy wife ’” 80 though she had not yet become his wife,
“even if you suspect her of a fall”; but she is not what you think,” and so on.
( 5 ) For he says directly after that, “for that which was conceived in her,” 8l as
though it had already occurred , 82 but then, “she shall bear a son ,” 88 as of a

74 Gen 2:24.

75 Eph 5:32.

76 Gen 2:7.

77 Gen 2:21-22.

78 Matt 1:18.

79 Cf. Matt 1:25.

80 Matt 1:20.

81 Matt 1:20.

82 Eltester yEysvvjpEvov, Holl and MSS yEy£vvv]pEvou.

83 Matt 1:21.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

633

future event; and she did. (6) And the prediction 84 < has come down tous*>
because its truth has been demonstrated, just as “before they came together”

< has come down to us* > because we are satisfied 85 that no such thing has
occurred. “Until she brought forth her son, the firstborn, ” is to be interpreted
along the same lines , 86 because of the marvel of the knowledge of the Virgin,
with her honor in the sight of God.

21.1 But no one should suppose that because it says, “before they came
together,” they came together Later on. No one can prove this or show it;
scripture has provided this added confirmation to show that the Savior’s con-
ception was undefiled. “[Joseph] knew her not" is said to her glory; (2) “first-
born “ is said because he is the Firstborn, before there are any creatures, and
the “firstborn among many brethren ’’ 81 as the apostle said — not brethren
by < birth > from Mary as though she bore other sons, but the brethren who
were vouchsafed adoption as sons through him when, to remove any suspi-
cion of docetism, he truly became her son in the flesh. (3) What is more, he
was the firstborn and the son of the Virgin herself — not, as I said, because
she had other sons. For this is similar to his first birth before the incarna-
tion. Fie who is truly the Father’s heavenly Firstborn before all creation, is
not called Firstborn because there were others begotten of the Father after
him. Because he is Only-begotten, he has no second brother. (4) Thus he was
always Mary’s firstborn during his sojourn on earth, but since he had no
second brother bom of her, he was Mary’s only child.

Those who have invented things that will hurt and not help them must
stop. Don’t do it! Please don’t! (5) He who honors the Lord, also honors his
holy < vessel >; he who dishonors the holy < vessel >, dishonors his own Mas-
ter as well Leave Mary the holy vessel, the holy Virgin, alone! These harmful

< contrivances > are of no use to us; we must think more reverently, or we will
become proud, or contentious, or garrulous. (6) For as the scripture says, We
shall “give account for every idle word . 88 Let us look after ourselves, <then>,
and mind our own business. Let us not attribute our behavior to the saints,
not look at the saints’ lives in terms of our own.

22.1 For some who are who are constrained and inclined to sensuality
and have within them a pernicious expectation [of it], would doubtless like
to smear the saints as well, to provide a plausible excuse for their wicked,

84 I.e., “She shall bear a son.”

85 Holl dpxoufiEvoip, MSS apxoupiEvoi.

86 Cf. 17,4-7.

87 Rom 8:29.

88 Matt 12:36.

634

ANTIDICOMARIANS

weak-willed expectation. To them the apostle says, “I wouLd that all men were
as myself .” 89 But why does he say, “myself,” except because of his purity?

22,2 “But because of fornication, let each have his own wife !" 90 But the
pronoun has been left out; Paul said this for a reproof, and to convert them.
He could have said, “because of your fornication." He left “your” out, how-
ever, not to appear to have said this as abuse of anyone. ( 3 ) But the words
were spoken in condemnation of certain persons who were unwilling to free
themselves for God, as our fathers of old used to do after living in accordance
with the Law and knowing their own vessels fittingly for procreation. I have
found a scripture somewhere that says, “Rebecca conceived of one ." 91 ( 4 ) By
saying, “of one, ” he described it politely but showed that her conception was
a righteous one. He is telling us that, once he had children, Jacob had no
further relations with his wife.

22,5 But it is a simple and easy matter for our minds to be diverted to
evils instead of the essentials. Our human reason is shaky, and not quick to
direct its zeal into the Lord’s straight path. It veers sometimes to the right
and sometimes to the left, and finds it hard to obey Solomon’s injunction,
“Turn not to the right hand, nor to the left . 92 ( 6 ) Since our wickedness is
taking another turn with regard to the same thoughts, and urges our good
sense to go off on other paths, let us make sure that excessive praise of the
Virgin does not become another occasion of delusion for anyone.

23.1 For in blasphemy of the Son, some, as I have already indicated, have
done their best to make him Literally different from the Father’s Godhead.
Others again, whose views are different, have said that the Father is the
same, the Son is the same, and the Holy Spirit is the same, as though, if you
please, they had been encouraged to honor the Son too highly. In both cases
the plague is incurable.

23.2 Similarly, some have dared to speak insolently of this holy and
blessed Ever-virgin, as though she had had sexual relations after that great-
est and unsullied providence of the Lord, his incarnation. And of all wicked-
ness, this is the most impious. ( 3 ) But even as I say < that I am astonished >
to learn how some have dared to give themselves to [the] sin with the utmost
readiness, Lam once more astonished to hear the other. For 
in turn that others, who are out of their minds on the subject of this holy Ever-
virgin, have done and are doing their best, in the grip both of some madness

89 1 Cor 7:7.

90 1 Cor 7:2.

91 Rom 9:10.

92 Prov 4:27.

ANTIDICOMARIANS

635

and off oily, to substitute her for God. ( 4 ) For they say that certain Thracian
women there in Arabia have introduced this nonsense, and that they bake
a loaf in the name of the Ever-virgin, gather together, and < both > attempt
an excess and undertake a forbidden, blasphemous act in the holy Virgin’s
name, and offer sacrifice in her name with woman officiants.

This is entirely impious, unlawful, and different from the Holy Spirit’s mes-
sage, and is thus pure devil’s work, and the doctrine of an unclean spirit.
( 5 ) The words, “Some shall depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to fables
and doctrines of devils, ” 93 apply to these people as well For as the scrip-
tures say, they will be “worshiping the dead ” 94 as the dead were given divine
honors in Israel. And the glory of the saints, which redounds to God in its due
season, has become an error for others, who do not see the truth.

23,6 For in Shechem, that is, the present day Neapolis, the inhabitants
offer sacrifices in the name of Core, supposedly because offephthah’s daugh-
ter who was once offered to God as a sacrifice. And for those who have been
taken in by it, this has become the misfortune of idolatry and vain worship.
( 7 ) And because Pharaoh’s daughter honored God’s servant Moses, and took
him up and reared him, the Egyptians honored her to excess in place of God
because of the fame of the child in those days, and by an evil tradition have
handed this down to the foolish as an observance. And they worship Thermu-
tis the daughter of Amenop his 95 who was Pharaoh until that time, because,
as I said, she reared Moses.

23,8 And there have been many such things to mislead the deluded,
though the saints are not responsible for anyone’s stumbling; the human
mind finds no rest, but is perverted to evils. ( 9 ) The holy virgin may have died
and been buried — her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity,
her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death — as the scripture
says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” 96 — her fame is among
the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid
blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing
whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master.
( 10 ) It is time for the error of those who have gone astray to cease. Mary is
not God and does not have her body from heaven but by human concep-
tion, though, like Isaac, she was provided by promise. ( 11 ) And no one should

93 1 Tim 4:1.

94 Cf. Didache 6.3.

95 Jos. C. Ap. 1.26.230-232; Ant. 2.5.224-226; Theoph. Ad Autol. 3.20.

96 Cf. Luke 2:35.

6 3 6

ANTIDICOMARIANS

make offerings in her name, for he is destroying his own soul. But neither, in
turn, should he be insolent and offer insult to the holy Virgin. Heaven forbid,
she had no sexual relations after or before the Savior’s conception.

24,1 I have thought these few points through and put them in writing for
those who are willing to learn the truth of the scripture, and not talk wildly
and sharpen their blasphemous tongues to no purpose. (2) But if any prefer
to object, and receive not what is beneficial but the opposite, I too will have
to say, despite my insignificance, " ‘Let him that heareth, hear, and him that
disobeyeth, disobey’; 97 ‘let no man trouble’ the apostles any more, or ‘me .’” 98
(3) What I knew to be reverent and of use to the church I have said of the
holy Virgin, in defense of her who is in every way favored, as Gabriel said,
“Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee!’’ 99 But if the Lord
is with her, how can she be a partner in another union? How can she have
intercourse with flesh, when she is preserved by the Lord? (4) The saints are
in honor, their repose is in glory, their departure in perfection, their portion
in blessedness, among the holy women alone. Their choir is with the angels,
their dwelling in heaven, their manner of life in the sacred scriptures. Their
fame is in incomparable and perpetual honor. Their rewards are in Christ
Jesus our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with
the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

24,5 All the brethren sendyou their greetings. And do youy ourselves greet
all the faithful, orthodox brethren among you, who detest pride and hate
the fellowship of the Arians and the foolishness of the Sabellians, but honor
the Trinity in its co-essentiality, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three entities,
one essence, one Godhead, and in a word, one glory — and are not in error
about our Savior’s saving incarnation and advent in the flesh, (6) but believe
completely in the incarnation of Christ as perfect God and at the same time
perfect man except for sin; who took his body itself from Mary, and took a
soul and mind, and everything human except for sin — not a Christ who is
two, but one Lord, one God, one king, one high priest, God and man, man
and God, not two but one, united not as a mixture or as an unreal thing but
as a great dispensation of grace. Farewell!

24,7 Since I am satisfied that the copy of my letter is correct, and am of
the opinion that this much will do for a reply to them, I have also passed
this sect by in God, as I would a snake peeping out of its hole. I have fully

97 Ezek 3:27.

98 Gal 6:17.

99 Luke 1:28.

COLLYRIDIANS

637

refuted it with God’s wise doctrine and his power — a power that breathes
a sweet odor, like storax, on the world in the virtue < of the faithful >, holy
children of the virginity which began with Mary, through the light which
has dawned on the world through her. I have showed what the evil poi-
son of this serpent’s reptilian wickedness is. Let us go on to the rest once
more, to finish the entire work in God.

Against Collyridians , 1 who make offerings to Mary. 55,
but 75 of the series

1,1 < Another > sect has come to public notice after this, and I have already
mentioned a few things about it in the Sect preceding, in the letter about
Mary which I wrote to Arabia. (2) This one, again, was also brought to
Arabia from Thrace and upper Scythia, and word of it has reached me; it
too is ridiculous and, in the opinion of the wise, wholly absurd. (3) < So >
let’s begin the discussion and description of it; as others like it were, it too
will be adjudged silly rather than wise.

1,4 For as, long ago, those who, from an insolent attitude towards Mary,
have seen fit to suspect these things were sowing damaging suspicions in
people’s minds, so these persons who lean in the other direction are guilty
of doing the worst sort of harm. In them too the maxim of certain pagan
philosophers, “Extremes are equal,” will be exemplified. (5) For the harm
done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin
while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess.

1,6 And who but women are the teachers of this? Women are unsta-
ble, prone to error, and mean-spirited. (7) As in our earlier chapter on
Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla, so here the devil has seen fit to disgorge
ridiculous teachings from the mouths of women. For certain women deco-
rate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread
and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year, and all partake
of the bread-as I partially discussed in my same letter to Arabia. Now,
however, I shall speak plainly of it and, with prayer to God, give the best
refutations of it that I can, so as to grub out the roots of this idolatrous
sect and with God’s help, be able to cure certain people of this madness.

2,1 Now then, servants of God, let us adopt a manly frame of mind and
dispel the madness of these women. The speculation is entirely feminine,
and the malady of the deluded Eve all over again. Or rather, it is still the

1 The sources of this Sect are oral; see 1,2.

6 3 8

COLLYRIDIANS

malady of the snake, the seducing beast, and the false promise of the one
who spoke in it. This promise made no < sound > suggestion and did not
make its undertaking good, but only caused death by calling the untrue
true, and encouraging disobedience by the sight of the tree, and aversion
to the truth itself by attraction to many things.

2.2 But we shall have reason to suppose that, as the ideas the deceiver
sowed by saying, “Ye shall be as gods,” 2 so are the minds of these women
which have been ensnared by the pride of that snake. Once again he is
bringing death on that sex, as I have often said.

2.3 For to begin with, to whom is it not immediately obvious, < if he
will> investigate the whole scope of the past, that their teaching and
behavior are devilish, and their undertaking a deviation? Never at any
time has a woman offered sacrifice to God — (4) Eve herself, though she
had fallen into transgression, still did not dare to undertake such a further
impiety. Not one of her daughters did, though Abel sacrificed to God at
once, and, even though they were not accepted, Cain offered sacrifices
before the Lord. Enoch pleased God and was translated. Noah made thank
offerings to the Lord, as a token of gratitude, with the extra animals in
the ark, in thanksgiving to the One who had preserved him. (5) The righ-
teous Abraham offered God sacrifice, and Melchizedek the priest of God
Most High. Isaac was pleasing to God, and Jacob made the best offering
he could on the stone, by pouring oil from his flask.

And the children of Jacob. We find that Levi was the next to receive
the priesthood, but that those who received the priestly order came from
his stock — 1 mean Moses the prophet and expositor, Aaron and his sons
Eleazar and Phinehas, and his grandson fthamar. (6) And why name the
throngs of those who sacrificed to God in the Old Testament? We find
Ahitub sacrificing, and the sons of Korah, and the Gershonites and the
Merarites, to whom the levitical order was entrusted. And the house of Eli,
and his kinsmen after him in the household of Abimelech and Abiathar,
Helkiah and Buzi, down to the high priest Joshua, and Ezra the priest, and
the rest And nowhere did a woman offer sacrifice.

3,1 But 1 shall also go on to the New Testament as well. If it were
ordained by God that women should offer sacrifice or have any canonical
function in the church, Mary herself, if anyone, should have functioned as
a priest in the New Testament. She was counted worthy to bear the king
of all in her own womb, the heavenly God, the Son of God. Her womb

2 Gen 3:5.

COLLYRIDIANS

639

became a temple, and by God’s kindness and an awesome mystery was
prepared to be the dwelling place of the Lord’s human nature. But it was
not God’s pleasure [that she be a priest]. (2) She was not even entrusted
with the administration of baptism — for Christ could have been baptized
by her rather than by John. But John the son of Zacharias dwelt in the wil-
derness entrusted with baptism for the remission of sins, while his father
offered sacrifice to God and saw a vision at the time of the offering of
incense.

3.3 Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Thomas, Thaddaeus, James the son of Alphaeus, Judas the son of James
and Simon the Zealot, and Matthias who was chosen to make up the num-
ber of the Twelve — all these were chosen to be apostles and “offer the
Gospel” 3 < throughout > the world, together with Paul, Barnabas and the
rest, and with James, the Lord’s brother and the bishop of Jerusalem, [they
were chosen] to preside over mysteries.

3.4 Successors to the episcopate and presbyterate in the household of
God were appointed by this bishop and these apostles, and nowhere was
a woman appointed. (5) Scripture says, “Philip the evangelist had four
daughters which did prophesy,” 4 but they were certainly not priests. And
“Anna the daughter of Phanuel was a prophetess,” 5 but not entrusted
with the priesthood. For the words, “Your sons shall prophesy, and your
daughters shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions,” 6
required fulfillment.

3,6 < It is plain > too that there is an order of deaconesses in the church.
But this is not allowed for the practice of priesthood or any liturgical func-
tion, but for the sake of female modesty, at either the time of baptism or
of the examination of some condition or trouble, and when a woman’s
body may be bared, so that she will be seen not by the male priests but
by the assisting female who is appointed by the priest for the occasion,
to take temporary care of the woman who needs it at the time when her
body is uncovered. For the ordinance of discipline and good order in the
church has been well protected with understanding, by the standard of
our rule. For the same reason the word of God does not allow a woman

3 Rom 15:16.

4 Acts 21:9.

5 Luke 2:35.

6 Joel 3:1; Acts 2:17.

640

COLLYRIDIANS

“to speak” 7 in church either, or “bear rule over a man.” 8 And there is a
great deal that can be said about this.

4,1 But it must be observed that the ordinance of the church required
not only deaconesses. It mentioned widows too, and called those of them
who were still older, “elder,” but nowhere did it prescribe "eldresses” or
“priestesses.” Indeed, not even the deacons in the hierarchy of the church
have been commissioned to celebrate any mystery, but only to admin-
ister mysteries already celebrated. (2) But, once more, from whence has
this new story arisen for us? Whence women’s pride and female mad-
ness? What has nourished the wickedness that — through the female, once
more! 9 — pours the feminine habit of speculation into our minds < and >,
by encouraging its characteristic luxury, tries to compel the wretched
human race to overstep its proper bounds?

4,3 But let us adopt the firm resolve of the champion Job, prepare our-
selves with the righteous answer on our lips, and ourselves say, “Thou hast
spoken as one of the foolish women.” 10 (4) For how can such a thing not
appear insane to every wise man whose <mind is sound*> in God? How
can the practice not seem idolatrous and the undertaking the devil’s? But
the devil has always slipped into the human mind in the guise of someone
righteous and, to deify mortal human nature in human eyes, made human
images with a great variety of arts. (5) And yet the men who are worshiped
have died, and their images, which have never lived, are introduced for
worship — and since they’ve never lived they can’t be called dead either!
And with adulterous intent < they have rebelled > against the one and
only God, like a common whore who has been excited to the wickedness
of many relations and rejected the temperate course of lawful marriage
to one husband.

4,6 Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not God. Yes, the
Virgin was indeed a virgin and honored as such, but she was not given us
to worship; she worships Him who, though born of her flesh, has come
from heaven, from the bosom of his Father. (7) And the Gospel therefore
protects us by telling us so on the occasion when the Lord himself said,
“Woman, what is between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” * 11
<For> to make sure that no one would suppose, because of the words,

7 1 Tim 2:12.

8 1 Tim 2:12.

9 7raXiv 0 yjXeo<;. Eltester suggests that this is corrupt.

10 Job 2:10.

11 John 2:4.

COLLYRIDIANS

641

“What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more
[than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of the
schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some might
stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.

5,1 For what this sect has to say is complete nonsense and, as it were,
an old wives’ tale. Which scripture has spoken of it? Which prophet per-
mitted the worship of a man, let alone a woman? (2) The vessel is choice
but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies
of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and
understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is]
like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so,
and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on
the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” 12 She is like St. The-
da; and Mary is still more honored than she, because of the providence
vouchsafed her. (3) But Elijah is not to be worshiped, even though he is
alive. And John is not to be worshiped, even though by his own prayer —
or rather, by receiving the grace from God — he made an awesome thing
of his falling asleep. 13 But neither is Thecla worshiped, nor any of the
saints.

For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his
creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped the
creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.” 14 If it is not his
will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of Ann, 15
who was given to Ann byjoachim 16 and granted to her father and mother
by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not born other
than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like everyone
else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary say that her
father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has conceived,” 17 it
was not because this had come about without conjugal intercourse or a
man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted the coming event, so
that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly happened, had already
been decreed by God, and had been promised to the righteous.

12 John 13:23.

13 Cf. Act. John 108-115.

14 Rom 1:25; 22.

15 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1-3.

16 Cf Protevangelium of James 4.1-3.

17 Cf Protevangelium of James 4.2.

642

COLLYRIDIANS

6,1 And everywhere we see the scriptures saying < the same >. Isaiah
predicted the things that would be realized in the Son of God and said,
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son and shall call
his name Immanuel.” 18 (2) And as the woman who bore him was a virgin,
and the name of < the > child the woman had conceived meant, "God is
with us,” the prophet saw them in a vision and was compelled by the Holy
Spirit to describe them, so that he would not doubt the meaning of the
truth. He said, “And he went in unto the prophetess.” He was describing
Gabriel’s entrance in the Gospel, who was sent by God to announce the
entrance into the world of God’s only-begotten Son, and his birth of Mary.
And Isaiah said, “And she conceived and bare a son. (3) And the Lord said
unto me, Call his name Spoil Speedily, Ravage Fiercely. For before the
child shall know how to cry Father, or Mother, he shall take the power of
Damascus and the spoil of Samaria,” 19 and so on.

And all of these things were still unfulfilled. But this would be realized
in the Son of God, and fulfilled about 1600 years later, (sic) (4) And the
prophet was seeing what would < happen > after so many generations as
though it had already happened.

Was it a lie, then? Never! God’s providence was announced with confi-
dence as though it had already taken place, so that the truth would not be
disbelieved, and the arrival of such an astounding, awesome event would
not come to seem uncertain in the prophet’s estimation.

6,5 Or don’t you see the very next declaration, as the holy Isaiah him-
self says, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its
shearer is dumb, so opens he not his mouth. But who can tell his genera-
tion? For his life is taken from the earth, and I shall give the evil for his
grave,” 20 and so on. And see how he describes the earlier events as though
they came later, and explains the later ones as though they had already
taken place, by saying, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.” (6) For this
is said to be a past event; he didn’t say, “is led,” and the subject of Isaiah’s
pronouncement had yet to be led. But this was said to the prophet as
though it had already happened. God’s revelation was unalterable.

But when he went on he no longer spoke as of past events, so as not to
cause an error in his own turn, but said, “His life is taken from the earth.”

18 Isa 7:14.

19 Isa 8:3-4.

20 Isa 53:7; 8; 9.

COLLYRIDIANS

643

He is giving the truth in the two ways, because “was led” was already done,
and “is taken” was done later. Thus from its pastness you will know the
truth and the sureness of God’s promise, and from its futurity you will
imagine the time of the mysteries’ revelation.

7,1 And so in Mary’s case. The angel foretold what her father would
receive from God on his return home — the favor her father and mother
had asked in prayer, "Lo, thy wife hath conceived in her womb,” 21 as
a sure fulfillment, by the promise, of the faithful man’s purpose. But for
some this became an occasion of error. No one in the world can be born
in any but the normal human way. Only < the Son* > was fit < for this* >;
nature allowed it to him alone. (2) As Maker and Master of the thing [to
be made] he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth — God
come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin.

But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God,
or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women
priestesses after so many generations. (3) It was not God’s pleasure that
this be done with Salome, or with Mary herself. He did not permit her
to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but
only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom. (4) He
did not order the woman called the mother of Rufus to advance < to* >
this rank 22 or the women who followed Christ from Galilee, or Martha
the sister of Lazarus and [her sister] Mary, or any of the holy women who
were privileged to be saved by his advent < and > who assisted him with
their own possessions — or the woman of Canaan, or the woman who was
healed of the issue of blood, or any woman on earth.

7,5 Again, where has this coiled serpent come from? How are its
crooked counsels renewed? Mary should be honored, but the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit should be worshiped; no one should worship
Mary. There is no commandment to < offer > the Eucharist even to a man,
< as though > to God, let alone to a woman; not even angels are allowed
such glory. (6) The bad writing on the hearts of the deluded should be
erased, the sliver removed from their eyes. The creature must return to
its Master; Eve, with Adam, must take care to honor only God, and not be
influenced by the voice of the serpent but abide by God’s commandment,

21 Protevangelium of James Codex B 4.2.

22 Holl <ek touto> TipodyEiv, MSS touto noistv.

644

COLLYRIDIANS

“Thou shalt not eat of the tree.” 23 (7) And yet the tree was not error; the
disobedience of error came by the tree. Let no one eat of the error which
has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though the tree is “lovely” 24 it is not
for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor,
she is not to be worshiped.

8,1 But again, these women are "renewing the potion for Fortune and
preparing the table for the demon 25 and not for God, as the scripture
says. And they drink impious drinks as the word of God says, “And the
women grind flour, and their sons gather wood to make cakes for the host
of heaven.” 26 (2) Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not
frighten the world. They must not say, “We honor the queen of heaven.” 27
Taphnes knows how they must be punished; the places in Magdula know
how to receive their bodies for the moth. Do not obey a woman, Israel; rise
above a woman’s evil counsel. “A woman snares men’s precious souls.” 28
“Her feet bring those who use her with death to hades.” 29 (3) “Heed not a
worthless woman. Honey drops from the lips of an harlot, who anointeth
thy throat for a time; but afterwards shall thou find her more bitter than
gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword.” 30

Do not obey this worthless woman. Every sect is a worthless woman, but
this sect more so, which is composed of women and belongs to him who
was the deceiver of the first woman. (4) Our mother Eve should be hon-
ored because formed by God, but not be obeyed, or she may convince her
children to eat of the tree and transgress the commandment. She herself
must repent of her folly, must turn in shame and clad with fig leaves. And
Adam should look to himself, and no longer obey her. (5) Error’s persua-
sion, and the contrary counsels of a woman, are the cause of her spouse’s
death — and not only his, but her children’s. By her transgression Eve has
overthrown creation, for she was incited by the voice and promise of the
snake, strayed from God’s injunction, and went on to another notion.

23 Gen 2:17.

24 Gen 2:9.

25 Isa 65:11.

26 Jer 7:18.

27 Jer 51:18.

28 Prov 6:26.

29 Prov 5:5.

30 Prov 5:3-4.

COLLYRIDIANS

645

9,1 And so, since “death < had entered into > the world” 31 through a
woman, the Master and Savior of all, whose desire was to heal the hurt,
rebuild the ruins, and repair what was defective, came down and was
himself born of a virgin woman to bar death out, complete what was miss-
ing, and perfect what was lacking. But evil returns to us, to perpetuate
the defect in the world. Thanks to their God-given prudence, however,
neither young men nor old obey the woman. (2) The Egyptian woman
could not persuade or pervert the chaste Joseph, though she engineered
her dire scheme against the boy with great ingenuity. But a man who
had received prudence from the Holy Spirit was not persuaded, and so
as not to cheapen his nobility did not lose his chastity; he left his gar-
ments behind and did not ruin his body. To avoid the snare, he fled the
place. He was punished for a while, but he reigns forever. He was thrown
into prison, but better to remain under guard and “in the corner of a
courtyard” 32 than with "a contentious and brawling woman.” 33 (3) And
how much is there to say? Whether these worthless women offer Mary
the loaf as though in worship of her, or whether they mean to offer this
rotten fruit on her behalf, it is altogether silly and heretical, and demon-
inspired insolence and imposture.

9.4 But what I have said will do me, so as not to prolong the work. Mary
is to be held in honor, but the Lord is to be worshiped! For the righteous
deceive no one. “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he
any man” 34 to deceive him, and neither do his servants. “But every man
is tempted of his own lust, and enticed and caught. Then lust conceiveth
sin, and sin, when it is perfected, bringeth forth death.” 35

9.5 I believe I have said enough about all this, beloved. Now that we
have squashed this blister-beetle too, as it were, with the speech of the
truth — it looks golden, has something like wings, and flies, but it is poi-
sonous and contains deadly venom — let us go on to the one sect still
remaining. Once more let us call on God’s support, so that we may find
our way to the realm of the truth, and complete the refutation of our
opponents.

31 Rom 5:12.

32 Prov 21:9.

33 Prov 21:19.

34 James 1:13.

35 James 1:14-15.

646

MASSALIANS

Against Massalians, 1 with, whom Martyrians, who are pagan, and the
Euphemites and Satanians, are associated. 60, but 80 of the series

1,1 Shamelessness never gets enough, and foolishness is never satisfied.
Rather, it has bared its mind and opened its mouth to everything, to ruin
the seed of Adam and Noah by bringing their chastity to an end by any
number of methods, implanting whorishness in its victims by a variety
of methods. (2) For another sect has actually arisen after these, a fool-
ish, entirely stupid one, wholly ridiculous, inconsistent in its doctrine, and
composed of deluded men and women. They are called Massalians, which
means “people who pray.” 2

1,3 For there were others a while ago in their own turn — from about
the time of Constantius — who were called Euphemites and Massalians,
and I suppose this [present] group has acquired its fervor in imitation
of that one. (4) But those were pagan, and neither adherents of Judaism,
Christians, nor Samaritans. They were simply pagans, if you please, and
said that the gods existed although they worshiped none < of them >, sup-
posedly giving divine honor to one only and calling him the Almighty. 3
They built certain houses for themselves, or flat places like fora, and called
these prayer houses.

1,5 There were also places of prayer outside the cities in ancient times,
among both the Jews and the Samaritans. I have found this in the Acts
of the Apostles where Lydia the seller of purple met St Paul. The sacred
scripture describes it as follows: “It seemed to be a place of prayer”; 4 and
the apostles came up and taught the women who had assembled on that
occasion. (6) There is also a place of prayer at Shechem, the town now
called Neapolis, about two miles out of town on the plain. It has been set
up theater fashion outdoors in the open air, by the Samaritans who mimic
all the customs of the Jews.

2,1 But the earlier, pagan Massalians — the predecessors of the present
ones whose background is nominally Christian — would sometimes set
up small sites like these themselves, like the ones called synagogues and
oratories, in certain places; but in others they actually built something

1 8,1 suggests that Epiphanius’ sources of information about this group were oral. Other
ancient accounts of the Christian Massalians are found at Ephrem Syrus Haer. 22; Theod.
H.E. 4.11; Haer. Fab. 4.11.

2 from Aramaic 'bit, “pray”.

3 Gregory of Nazianzus appears to describe this group under the name of Hypsistarii,
Or. 8.5.

4 Acts 16:13.

MASSALLANS

647

like a church. They would gather in the evening and at dawn with much
lighting of lamps and torches (2) and offer God lengthy hymns by their
sages and certain blessings, if you please, in the fond belief that they can
appease God, as it were, < with > hymns and blessings.

2.3 But blind ignorance contrives all this, with the fancy of conceit, for
those who have gone astray. (3) One such structure was struck by light-
ning a while ago, I cannot say where, but I may have heard of it in Phoeni-
cia. Moreover, some zealous provincial governors have put many of these
persons to death for debasing the truth and counterfeiting the customs of
the church without being either Christians or Jews. I believe the general
Lupician was one who punished these pagan Euphemites, but a second
error arose for them because of this. (4) Some of them took the bodies of
those who were put to death at that time for this pagan lawlessness, bur-
ied them in certain places, pronounced the same blessings there in turn,
and called themselves Martyrians, supposedly because of those who had
been martyred for the idols!

3.1 But others in their own turn thought of something still more crafty
and said, as though, in their simplicity, consulting their own intelligence,
“Satan is great and the strongest, and does people a great deal of harm.
Why not take refuge in him, worship him instead [of God], and give him
honor and blessing, so that < he will be appeased* > by our flattering ser-
vice and do us no harm, but spare us because we have become his ser-
vants?” And so, again, they have called themselves Satanians.

3.2 I grouped their sect together with the ones I mentioned first and
intend to speak of now because, in their departure from the truth, they
do the same things in the open air, and spend their time in prayer and
hymns. (3) But all this was harmless because of its absurdity and could
distract no one’s mind from the truth, for those people were not said to be
Christian but were altogether pagan. Today, however, these people who
are now called Massalians < have adopted* > their customs. But they have
no beginning or end, no top or bottom, they are unstable in every way,
without principles, and victims of delusion. They are entirely without the
foundation of a name, a law, a position, or legislation.

3.4 Saying that they have supposedly come to faith in Christ, they see
fit < to gather* > [in mixed companies] of men and women, as though they
had renounced the world and abandoned their homes. But in the sum-
mertime they sleep in the public squares, all together in a mixed crowd,
men with women and women with men, because, as they say, they own
no possession on earth. They show no restraint and hold their hands out
to beg, as though they had no means of livelihood and no property.

648

MASSALIANS

3.5 But the things they say go beyond foolishness. Whichever of them
you ask, he calls himself anything you want him to. If you say, “prophet,”
they will say, “I am a prophet,” if you name Christ, he will say, “I am Christ,”
if you mention patriarch, he will shamelessly call himself that; if angel, he
will say he is one. And in a word, how foolish people are! 5

3.6 They have no notion of fasting. 6 If they get hungry at their time
of prayer, if you please, whether it is at the second hour or the third
hour or nighttime, they do anything without restraint, and eat and drink.
(7) As to vice or sexual misconduct, I have no way of knowing. But they
can have no lack of this either, especially with their custom of sleeping all
together in the same place, men and women. There are also Massalians,
of Mesopotamian extraction, in Antioch.

4,1 But they got this harmful doctrine from the extreme simplicity of
certain of the brethren. For some who are brothers of mine, and ortho-
dox, do not know the moderation of Christian conduct, which tells us to
renounce the world, abandon our possessions and property, sell what we
have and give to the poor — but really to take up the cross and follow, and
not < be > idle and without occupation and eat at the wrong times, and
not < be like > drones (2) but “work with one’s own hands,” 7 like the holy
apostle Paul who renounced the world. Though he was the herald of the
truth “his hands sufficed not only for himself, but also for them that were
with him.” 8 Not that they were idle; they joined him in his work. He
boasts of this somewhere and teaches us in the plainest of terms, “He that
worketh not, neither let him eat.” 9 (3) Some of these brethren < refrain
from all mundane labor* > — as though they had learned this from the
Persian immigrant, Mani, if I may say so. They have no business to be that
way. The word of God tells us to mark such people, who will not work.

4,4 For the saying of the Savior, "Labor not for the meat that perisheth,
but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,” 10 has given some
a wrong notion. They believe that “the meat that perishes” is the honest
labor < by > which we possess its product righteously. This applied to Abra-
ham’s work, because of the calf; to the widow’s, because of Elijah; to Job’s
work because of his sons and cattle; and [it applies] to all these servants of

5 Lietzmann comments, “Dies wird wohl eine karrikierte Aiisserungsweise des bei
Theodoret bezeugten Enthusiasmus = Einwirking des heiligen Geistes sein.”

6 Cf. Theod. H. E. 4.11.7.

7 Cf. 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thes. 4:11.

8 Cf. Acts 20:34.

9 2 Thes 3:10.

10 John 6:27.

MASSALLANS

649

God who labor righteously with their own hands “to suffice also for them
that need” 11 — just as they perform this righteous labor in every monas-
tery, in Egypt and every country. (5) As the bee, with the wax she has pro-
duced < in > her hands but a drop of honey in her mouth, hymns the Lord
of all with her own voice of song, in proportion to her understanding — as
Solomon testifies, “By honoring wisdom she was advanced” 12 — (6) so the
servants of God who are truly founded on the solid rock of the truth and
build their house securely, perform their light tasks, each in his own trade,
with their own hands. And they recite nearly all of the sacred scripture
and keep their frequent vigils without tiring or grudging, one in prayer,
another in psalmody. They continually hold the assemblies that have been
set by lawful custom, (7) and spend all their days in the offering of blame-
less prayers to God, with deep humility and woeful lamentation, < at > the
hours which come without intermission at their fixed intervals. [And], as
I said, besides their spiritual work they spend their days in manual labor,
so that they will not become needy and fall into human hypocrisies, no
longer able to speak the truth to the impious (8) or be untouched by the
defilement of those who are rich from unrighteousness and take advan-
tage of the poor — and no longer able to do without maintenance by such
people because they cannot support themselves by honest toil, but are
forced by need to share the idle table of the rich.

5,1 And thus the word of God urges us, “Desire not the meats of the rich,
for these are near a life of falsehood.” 13 And again, in another passage,
“Such things must thou prepare. But if thou art more greedy, desire not his
meats.” 14 (2) For the [three] children in Babylon gained glory from these,
because they rejected the king’s table and chose to satisfy their hunger
with seeds instead of his table and food. They renounced wealth and glory
as Moses “chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to
enjoy” 15 the treasures in Egypt.

But he attained to prophecy by working with his own hands. (3) For
this aristocrat and son of the king’s daughter was made a shepherd so that
he would not eat the bread of idleness. And so our father Jacob teaches
us this when he says to Laban, “Give me work, so that I may labor <and

11 Cf. Eph 4:28.

12 Prov 6:8c.

13 Prov 23:3.

14 Prov 23:2-3.

15 Heb 11:25.

650

MASSALIANS

enjoy > mine own bread.” 16 And Jacob himself in his turn was told by his
own father-in-law to tend sheep, for the righteous must not eat the bread
of idleness.

5,4 The apostles were told to earn their living by preaching the word,
so that they would not spend their time in journeys from city to city and
place to place to preach. For “The laborer is worthy of his hire,” 17 and,
“Sufficient for him that laboreth is his sustenance.” 18 (5) And because of
their frequent business with the laity, their administration of the church,
and their constant liturgical worship, the word of God also says to pastors,
“Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of its milk? Or who planteth a vine-
yard, and partaketh not of its fruit?” 19 It says besides, “The husbandman
must be first partaker of the fruits,” 20 (6) so as not to leave the presbyter
or bishop in want of his daily bread; it urges the laity to contribute from
their just wages to the support of the priests, through firstfruits, offerings
and the rest. And though the persons God has appointed to guide the laity
have a right to these things, since they profess to please God wholly they
do not use them to excess.

6,1 Indeed, besides their preaching of the word, some of God’s priests
imitate their holy father in Christ after God, I mean the holy apostle Paul,
and most, though not all, work with their hands as far as possible and

< ply > any trade they find to be in keeping with their rank and constant
care for the church. (2) Thus, along with the word and its preaching, they
will have a clear conscience because they produce with their own hands,
maintain themselves and, with an excellent disposition towards God
and their neighbors, willingly share the alms they have on hand, I mean

< from > firstfruits, offerings and their own earnings, with the brethren
and the needy.

6,3 True, they are under no compulsion [to do this], or condemned
[for not doing it]; but even though they are engaged [both] in righteous
labor and in the work of the church, and have a right to maintenance, they
do this from an abundance of good will. (4) For their God-inspired souls
also desire this, grounded, [as they are], in the fear of God, and taught by
the Holy Spirit of the heavenly riches, which are righteously gained amid
praise, a good report and excellence, and are won by sacred doctrines, the
study of the holy scripture and the oracles of God, psalmody and solemn

16 Cf. Gen 29:15-16.

17 Matt 10:10.

18 Cf. 1 Tim 6:8.

19 1 Cor 9:7.

20 2 Tim 2:6.

MASSALLANS

651

assemblies, holy fasts, purity and discipline, and voluntary manual work
for righteousness’ sake.

6,5 Besides, these same esteemed brethren of ours in the monasteries,
or, as we say, the cloisters of Mesopotamia, have been detected in another
form [of error], that of deliberately < having > their hair long like a wom-
an’s and wearing sackcloth openly. (6) The children of < Christ’s > holy
virgin, our mother the church, should be grave and retiring persons and
secretly serve the God who, as the scripture says, knows our secrets and
rewards us openly. They should < walk > decorously because of outsiders,
and not desire reward and credit from those who see them. Visible sack-
cloth is out of place in the catholic church, as is < un >cut hair, because of
the apostle’s injunction, “A man ought not to have long hair, inasmuch as
he is the image of God.” 21

7,1 But what is worse, and the opposite error, some cut off their beards,
the mark of manhood, while often letting the hair of their heads grow long.
And as to the beard, the sacred instruction and teaching in the Ordinances
of the Apostles says not to “spoil,” that is, not to cut the beard, 22 and not to
deck oneself with meretricious ornaments or have the approach of pride as
a copy of righteousness. (2) Long hair was proper only for nazirites, because
of the type. The ancients were guided by the type of Him who was to come,
and had long hair on their heads for prayer until the world’s Prayer came
and was answered. But Christ, God’s only-begotten Son, was obviously a
Head; and he who always was, was made known to the world — (and yet
was not known to all mankind, but only to the few believers in him) —
so that, when we know the Head, we will not “dishonor the head.” 23 This
dishonor is not praiseworthy like the other one <of which the scripture
speaks> when it says, "despising the shame.” 24 (3) For the apostle is not
speaking of his own head; the point of his joke, “Doth not nature itself
teach you that, if a man hath long hair, it is shame to Him ?’’ 25 applies to
Christ rather than to Paul’s head. For the adornment is not [being worn]
for God’s sake, even though it is supposed to be; the style is a contentious
one, since the type of the Law is gone and the truth has come.

7,4 But Paul says, “If any seem to be contentious, we have no such cus-
tom, neither the churches of God.” 26 He rejected persons who had such

21 1 Cor 11:7.

22 Didascalia 2 (S-S p. 107; A-F p. 5).

23 1 Cor 11:4.

24 Heb 12:2.

25 Cf. 1 Cor 11:14.

26 1 Cor 11:16.

652

MASSALIANS

customs and practices because, by the apostles’ ordinance and in the eyes
of God’s church, they are contentious. (5) But I have been obliged to say
this because of these Massalians, since they have contracted the sickness
of mind from the same source (i.e., contention), have truly come to grief
from perversity of mind, and have been made a sect with the horrid cus-
tom of idleness and the other evils.

8.1 This is what I have heard about these people in their turn. They
have become a joke in the eyes of the world and have spat up their vul-
gar thought and words, though they are incoherent and irremediable, and
have abandoned God’s building. So I shall mention a few points about
these things and, as usual, work them up for their refutation. (2) First of
all, by the ancient usage of persons who are really married, right reason
does not allow women to associate with men. [It allows] a man < to be >
with his wife in private, as Adam was with Eve, as Sarah was with Abra-
ham, as Rebecca was united with Isaac. (3) For even though some of the
patriarchs had two and three wives, the wives were not in one house.
This sort of thing is the intercourse of swine and cattle. (4) If anything,
these people astonish me because they profess not to have commerce
with wives, while on the contrary they are having their joke and making
a show of their utter shame. (5) For even if they had spouses, they should
have them individually, not promiscuously. And even if they are married,
they should not be caught making a public spectacle, by their own free
choice, of God’s institution, the union of man and wife with decency, dig-
nity and understanding. (6) Even though some of them have abstained
from women in purity and continence, they have outraged what is right
by their foolishness, and virtuous behavior by their silly, extravagant
activity — for the apostles did not do this, nor did the prophets who pre-
ceded the apostles command it.

9.1 Moses took up the hymnody in the wilderness when he came out
of the sea, and sang to God, “Let us sing to the Lord, for he is held in
glorious honor; horse and rider hath he thrown into the sea.” 27 And the
men responded together, but no women, to show their decorous disposi-
tions, teaching the dignity and order of God’s Law. (2) And next it says,
“And Miriam took the timbrel and led the women, and said, “Let us sing
to the Lord, for he is held in glorious honor.” 28 And women responded
together to her who was like them, was of the same sex, and was in some

27 Exod 15:1.

28 Exod 15:20-21.

MASSALLANS

653

sort their leader — contrary to the ignorant, vulgar notion of those who
practice heresies in mixed crowds.

9,3 But the prophet says of the resurrection, “And they shall mourn
by tribes, the tribe of Nathan by itself and their women by themselves,
the tribe of Judah by itself and their women by themselves,” 29 and so on.
(4) The apostles enjoined this on the church, and the Lord enjoined it
in the Gospel by illustrating it from one woman and telling his mother
(sic), “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” 30 (5) So
Gehazi approached the Shunamite to thrust her away, to keep her from
violating the commandment and flaunting the ordinance of the prophets.
But by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration the prophet saw the woman’s sadness,
transgressed the ordinance to console her, received her that one time for
the woman’s consolation, and overlooked her touching his feet contrary
to custom < because of > her distress and grief of heart. And why should I
say a lot about these people who mimic dogs and imitate swine?

9,6 But as to their calling themselves Christ, what sensible person can
fail to see that the doctrine is crazy? Or < their > saying, “I am a prophet!”
What kind of prophecy is to be seen among them, or which marvelous
work of Christ do they perform? If someone is Christ himself, in which
Lord has he hoped and believed? Why the errant nonsense? Why the idi-
otic doctrines? But the things I have said about it will also be sufficient
for this sect.

10,1 And this is the place to seal my whole work on these sects and
bring it to a close. God has appeared and come to my aid, as I can confess
with all my soul and mind, < and > thank the Lord himself that I have
been privileged to finish the undertaking I assumed in the Lord himself —
I mean that I have composed a description and refutation of < eighty >
sects, and at the same time, as far as my human frailty permitted, revealed
what goes on in each. (2) For this is the end of my full account of the origins
and causes of the eighty sects I have been told of, and whose number and
names I know, and the formularies, proof-texts and positions of some of
them. I am struck with wonder at the words of the sacred scripture, “There
are threescore queens and fourscore concubines, and maidens without
number; one is my dove, my perfect one,” 31 to see how — (3) after speak-
ing of the eighty concubines to begin with and naming Barbarism, Scythi-
anism, Judaism, Samaritanism [and the rest], which are not lawful wives

29 Zech 12:12.

30 John 20:17.

31 Cant 6:8-9.

654

MASSALIANS

and have no dowry from the king and no guarantee that their children can
inherit — all I shall have left is the demonstration of the truth, the one and
only dove herself, whom the bridegroom praises. 32 (4) (For there really
are seventy-five concubines, and these five mothers of theirs — Hellenism,
the mother of the pagans; Judaism, the mother of the Jews; the Samari-
tan sect, the mother of the Samaritans, and Christianity, 33 (5) from which
the separated sects have been broken off like branches and are called by
Christ’s name but are not his. Some are very far removed from him, while
others have disinherited and estranged themselves over some very small
matter — [themselves] and their children, who are not children of lawful
wives but of wives who have strayed, and are merely called by the name
of Christ.)

11,1 And in what follows, now that 1 have the leisure and have made
fervent supplication to God, I shall make the case for the truth, brief in
its statement but sure in its teaching. Though the truth is not last; it is
first, and I have already mentioned it some time ago, before the sects, in
the Advent of Christ. 34 (2) < 1 sing its praises* > now, however, because
it is the first, and ever since his incarnation has been united to Christ as
his holy bride. (3) It was created with Adam, proclaimed among the patri-
archs before Abraham, believed with Abraham, revealed by Moses, and
prophesied in Isaiah. But it was made manifest in Christ and exists with
Christ, and is the object of our praise after< wards >.

11,4 For to receive the crown afterwards and continue happy with the
crown, the contestant must first engage in the contest, and the toil and
other struggles of the contest. Not that the crown comes last; it is there
before the bout but is awarded afterwards, for the joy and gladness of him
who has worked for it. (5) But now that I have said these things about the
Massalians, let us go on to the words 1 have spoken of, < because we want >
to show how there are eighty concubines but sixty queens, (6) [and] how
one is at once virgin and holy bride, and dove and ewe lamb, but [also]
God’s holy city, “the pillar and ground of the truth” 35 and “the firm rock,
over which the gates of hell shall not prevail.” 36

32 This last clause is Holl’s paragraph 6. It follows a very long parenthesis in the text,
and the sense is best conveyed by rendering it here.

33 Without Barbarism and Scythianism, which Epiphanius omits here, there are 79
sects; with them, if Christianity is also to be counted, there are 81.

34 De Incarnatione, the unnumbered tractate between Sects 20 and 21.

35 1 Tim 2:15.

36 Matt 16:18.

DE FIDE

655

(7) For, calling and having called upon God in all things, I have suc-
ceeded in keeping my promised undertaking, I mean the complete her-
esiology, and in this undertaking reached even the sect of the Massalians.
Treading on it too with the shoe of the Gospel, like a many-footed, ugly,
misshapen and foul-smelling chameleon, let us give thanks to God in all
things and < glorify > the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, with the
Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.

A Concise, Accurate Account of the Faith of the Catholic and
Apostolic Church (De Fide)

1,1 We have discussed the various, multiform, much divided, rash teach-
ings of the crooked counsels of our opponents, have distinguished them
by species and genus, and, by God’s power, have exposed them as stale
and worthless. We have sailed across the shoreless sea of the blasphemies
of each sect, with great difficulty crossed the ocean of their blasphemous,
shameful, repulsive mysteries, (2) given the solutions to their < hosts >
of problems, and passed their wickedness by. And we have approached
the calm lands of the truth, after negotiating every rough place, enduring
every squall, foaming, and tossing of billows, (3) and, as it were, seeing
the swell of the sea, and its whirlpools, its shallows none too small, and
its places full of dangerous beasts, and experiencing them through their
words.

And now, sighting the haven of peace, we make supplication to the
Lord once more in prayer as we hasten to land in it. (4) Now, as we
recover from all our fear, distress and illness, as we inhale the mainland
breezes with the utmost relief, as we < have come to > safety and 1 won
our way to the calm harbor, we rejoice already in our spirits. (5) If the
truth must be told, we have borne many hardships in [all of] this, and no
light ill treatment, and have marched and sailed, as it were, across land
and sea — the earth’s rugged mountains and desert wastes, and the perils
of the deep which we have mentioned. (6) Let us hasten to the city the
moment we spy it — the holy Jerusalem and Christ’s virgin and bride, the
firm foundation and rock, our holy mother < but > Christ’s bride. At this
most auspicious moment let us ourselves say, “Come, let us go up to the

1 Dummer xaLou te, Holl [xai] tou te.

656

DE FIDE

mountain of the Lord, and the house of the God of Jacob. And he shall
teach us his way,” 2 and so on.

2,1 Now then, children of Christ and sons of God’s holy church, who
have read through this compilation of the eighty sects or a part of them,
who have joined me in plowing through such a mass of their wicked doc-
trines and marching across such a vast desert, fearful and dryly set down!
(2) As though we were in Mara and thirsty from the fearful, trackless
waste, let us call upon the Lord of all, for we have always been in need
of him and in every part of these Sects, in our continual encounters with
their obscurities. (3) Let us cry out ourselves, “Like as the hart desireth
the waterbrooks, so longeth my soul after thee, O God,” and again, “When
shall I come to appear before the presence of God?” 3 (4) Therefore let
us ourselves be quick to call upon him — not as he called the bride, for
he is her Bridegroom, Lord, Master, King, God and Champion. (5) But let
us call upon him as his servants and ourselves say, in unison with him,
“Hither from Lebanon, O bride, for thou art all fair and there is no spot
in thee.” 4

2,6 [She is] the great Builder’s garden, the city of the holy king, the
bride of the unspotted Christ, the pure virgin betrothed in faith to one
husband alone — she who is illustrious and “breaketh forth as the dawn,
fair as the moon, choice as the sun, terrible as serried ranks;” 5 she who
is called blessed by the “queens,” and hymned by the “concubines.” 6 She
is praised by the daughters and “cometh from the wilderness,” 7 “made
white and leaning upon her sister’s son.” 8 She exudes myrrh and “cometh
from the wilderness, exuding, like pillars of smoke, myrrh, and frankin-
cense from the powders of the perfumer” 9 who has given his own sweet
savor — (7) he whom she foresaw and said, “Ointment poured out is thy
name; therefore the maidens have loved thee.” 10

She "standeth at the king’s right hand clad in fringed garments, cun-
ningly adorned with garments interwoven with gold.” 11 There is no dark-

2 Isa 2:3.

3 Ps 41:2-3.

4 Cant 4:8; 7.

5 Cant 6:10.

6 Cant 6:8.

7 Cant 3:6.

8 Cant 8:5.

9 Cant 3:6.

10 Cant 1:3.

Ps 44: 10; 14.

DE FIDE

657

ness in her though once she was “blackened.” 12 (8) But now she is “fair” 13
and “made white.” 14 Thus, on entering you, we shall recover from the
hateful pains of the deeds of the sects that once shot through us, shall
have respite from the tossing of their billows, and be truly refreshed in
you, our holy mother the church, in the sacred doctrine that is in you, and
God’s sole true faith.

2,9 But I shall begin describing the wonders of this holy city of God.
For glorious things have been spoken of her, as the prophet said, “Glori-
ous things have been spoken of thee, O city of God.” 15 They are beyond
the reach of all and inaccessible to unbelievers, but are obtainable in part,
with the promise of fullness, by the faithful and true, [and] will be pro-
vided by their Master in the kingdom of heaven, where, with her own
heavenly bridegroom, his holy virgin and heiress has herself obtained her
portion and inheritance.

3,1 In the first place, the God who is over all is God to us who have
been born of this holy church. This is the first proof of the truth, and
“the ground of the faith” 16 of this only, virgin, holy and harmless “dove”
(2) whom the Lord revealed in the Spirit to Solomon in the Song of Songs
and said, “There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and
maidens without number, but one is my dove, my perfect one” 17 — with
the addition of “my” and “my.” (3) For she is his “dove” and his “perfect
one,” since the others are said to be and are not, while she herself is
named twice. He did not say, “They are my eighty concubines,” of the
others. He awarded the queens their honorable connection with him
through the glorious name; but of the concubines he declared their com-
plete foreignness.

3,4 When I note their numbers I am obliged to investigate the pas-
sage by the anagogical method of spiritual interpretation, so as not to
pass them by. I am not exaggerating but truly comparing words with their
true spiritual senses, by means of the true scriptures. (5) For < it is plain >
that the number of each thing in scripture is unalterable, and that noth-
ing which is assigned a number can be without value or be reduced to

12 Cant 1:6.

13 Cant 1:5.

14 Cant 1:5.

15 Ps 86:3.

16 Cf. 1 Tim 3:15.

17 Cant 6:8-9.

658

DE FIDE

number in the scripture for no good reason. Now “queens” are the ones 18
named earlier on in a genealogy. (6) For vast throngs accompany a king,
but the king is still their head. So just as one man will be identified by his
head although there are many members in a body, the entire throng of the
king’s subjects will be reckoned as one through the one king.

4,r Now a generation in Christ is called a “queen,” not because the
whole generation ruled, but because the one generation which knew the
Lord is elevated < to > the royal rank and status by the name of its hus-
band. 19 For example, Adam and his whole generation are to be counted
as this, a “queen” — both his rule, and the ruling family which reigned with
him — because of his knowledge of God, his privilege of being the first
man created, and because he was given the first penance, as the sequel
shows. (2) Then after him came Seth and all humankind with him, and
Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah;
these holy men have been listed individually by number, one generation
after another, and the number of them is given in Matthew. (3) For in
Matthew there are sixty-two generations and lineages, listed under the
names of their finest men, who had the knowledge of God or shared
the royal glory and dignity because of some other excellence. The roll of
the number < of them > goes on until the incarnation of Christ.

4,4 For ten generations passed between Adam and Noah and another
ten between Noah and Abraham. But there were fourteen generations from
Abraham until David, fourteen generations from David until the captivity,
and fourteen generations from the captivity until Christ, so that there are
sixty-two generations from Adam to Christ, and they are rounded off to
sixty. (5) For although there were seventy-two palm trees in the wilder-
ness, scripture called them seventy. And although the seventy men were
called to the mount, with Eldad and Medad they are seventy-two. And
there were seventy-two translators under Ptolemy, but to round this off
we customarily speak of the Septuagint version.

4,6 Here too, I believe, it says sixty queens with the omission of the first
and the last, because of the < suitability of the* > middle sixty for types
and an anagogical treatment of the entire subject. For since < the length of

18 Literally, “souls”; feminine.

19 yeved, “generation,” is feminine, making the word-play possible. Both the genera-
tions and, from Epiphanius’ point of view, the sects succeed one another, and both series
start with Adam.

DE FIDE

659

time between Adam and Christ is counted* > by six tens, 20 but the time
of the creation was correspondingly over in < six days* >, < the number six
seems a suitable one* > for the linking of < a throng > of holy souls from
every generation, who have reigned in God by faith. (7) Thus there are six
stone water jars at Cana of Galilee, which were emptied and filled again.
By holding two 21 or three 22 firkins apiece they < symbolize* > the amounts
of the Old and New Testaments, and the whole of the Trinity. They were
changed from water into unmixed wine, and filled for the good cheer of
a wedding and the sons of men. (8) And so the pagan writings speak of
a hexagon, which is multiplied to twenty-one by three and seven. 23 The
significance of this hexagon is the same as the whole visible vault (of the
universe), since its rectangular base has a fourfold < “side” >, as it were,
and the covering over the vaulting on top makes six.

5,1 But not to go on too long, I rest content, once more, with what I
have said about the sixty queens counted up until Christ’s incarnation.
But after Christ and until now there are still generations, as is known only
to the Lord. (2) No one has reported or arranged the numbers by genera-
tion any further, because the number of this sort of thing has been sealed
and closed by the number of the queens, which is counted up to the incar-
nation itself. (3) For the rest, the later authors, rhetoricians, annalists or
historians, no longer count generations but successions and times of the
emperors, according to the number of the years of each emperor’s reign.

From all this the wise will easily understand that, even without
this inquiry, all time is divided into the sixty-two generations up until
Christ — (4) for after Christ the world’s time periods are no longer counted
by lineages in this way, since < the number > [of them] is summed up in
one unified whole which, by God’s good pleasure, indicates an unshake-
able stay. This [unity] will make it < evident > that the end of the age
is separate from time, and will be over at the transition to the age to
come. 24

20 I.e., groups of ten or more generations, counted by their "heads,” the persons who
begin them. Epiphanius arrives at the figure, six, by counting Adam as one, and Christ as
six. See 4,4.

21 I.e., the Old and New Testaments.

22 The Persons of the Holy Trinity.

23 It is probably best to interpret this simply as the shape of a hexagon resting on one
side.

24 The number which means “unshakeable support” is one. There is one “end of the
age,” i.e., the time between Christ's incarnation and the beginning of the “age to come.”
The oneness of the “end of the age” is shown by the fact that its chronology is not reckoned
by successive generations, which were multiple.

66o

DE FIDE

5,5 This is why he says, “ One is my dove, my perfect one.” 25 All things
are completed in her, whether < they are > times and seasons, years and
intervals of generations, and whether the age counts its dates by emper-
ors, consuls, Olympiads or governorships. (6) But there are eighty concu-
bines, who were to be found among the queens even before the earthly
reign, that is, the reign of the faith and this bride and virgin herself, who
is unspotted and a “dove,” the “only daughter of her mother, even of her
that bore her.” 26

6,1 For the church is engendered by one faith and born with the help
of the Holy Spirit, and is the only daughter of the only mother, and the
one daughter of her that bore her. And all the women who came after and
before her have been called concubines. They have not been entire strang-
ers to the covenant and inheritance, but have no stated dowry and are not
receptacles of the Holy Spirit, but have only an illicit union with the Word.
(2) For the Hebrew language gave a good explanation of the concubine by
calling her “pilegeshtha.” “Peleg” means “half,” and “ishtha” is a wife, which
is as much as to say that she is “half a wife.” 27 (3) Insofar as she has come
to the Lord, he called all to the light of liberty by saying, “While ye have
the light with you, walk in the light.” 28 And the holy apostle says, “Ye are
children of the day and children of the light.” 29 And again < it is said > in
the sacred scripture, “He that doeth evil hateth the light neither cometh
unto the light.” 30 (4) And similarly even though concubines — who are
not acknowledged or full wives, and are not married with a dowry by their
husbands — have carnal relations with the husbands, they cannot have the
honor, title, security, marriage portion, wedding gifts, dowered status and
legitimacy of the free wife.

And so, as I have said, the sects I have listed in succession are eighty
concubines. (5) But no one need be surprised if each of them is given
different names in every country. What is more, we must observe that
each sect in turn has frequently divided into many parts on its own and
the names [of them] are different. This is no surprise; it is the way things
are. (6) But I find eighty-one — one [more than eighty] because of the one
who is different from them all, but is the only one allotted to the bride-

25 Cant 6:9.

26 Cant 6:9.

27 Epiphanius incorrecdy adds the Aramaic emphatic ending to the Hebrew WAb’D
and tWN.

28 Cf. John 12:35.

29 1 Thes 5:5.

30 John 3:20.

DE FIDE

66l

groom acknowledged by him with such a name as “One is my dove,” and
again, “my perfect one.” 31 In other words all the concubines are low-born
and not reckoned as harmless, or pure and gentle.

6,7 There are concubines, then, from < the ones > that followed the
so-called “Barbarism” and “Scythianism” in the beginning, down through
the Massalians of whom we have just spoken — seventy-seven in all, and
the source of the pagan sects, Hellenism, and Judaism, the source of

< the > Jewish, and the Samaritan sect, the source of the Samaritan. When

< these > three are added to the seventy-seven the sum is eighty and the
one is left, (8) namely, the holy catholic church, Christianity. By the will
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Christianity was, in fact, named
from the beginning, both with Adam and — before Adam and before all
the ages — with Christ, and was believed by all who have pleased God in
every generation. And it was plainly revealed in the world at Christ’s com-
ing. And I now sing its praises once more after all these sects, the ones

< we called > concubines, following the order of the treatise.

7,1 For the Word himself counted the sects like this in the Song of
Songs when he said, “Eighty queens and eighty concubines and maidens
without number. But one,” he says, “is my dove, my perfect one; the one
daughter of her mother, elect for her that bore her.” 32 (2) And he later
shows how all will find her the most honored of them all, the mistress of
them all, and his only choice, the one whose children are the king’s heirs
and legitimate children. For they are “children of the promise” and not
“children of the bondmaid” 33 or the concubine, or of the others whose
description is endless.

7,3 For even though Abraham had children by the concubine Keturah,
Keturah’s children were not joint heirs with Isaac. They received gifts,
however, like gifts for a governor, to make sure that the type would be
preserved for the anagogical interpretation of the text, and that no one
would despair of Christ’s calling. (4) For the gifts Abraham gave Ishmael
and Keturah’s sons were a type of the good things to come, for the conver-
sion of the gentiles to the faith and truth.

7,5 For Abraham gave Hagar, a bondmaid and cast out by Abraham —
([she was] like the Jerusalem below who was in bondage with her children,
of whom it is said, “I have cast out thy mother,” 34 and again, "I gave the bill

31 Cant 6:9.

32 Cant 6:7-8.

33 Gal 4:28; 31.

34 Cf. Jer 22:26.

662

DE FIDE

of divorcement into her hands.”) 35 Abraham gave this bondmaid, I mean
Hagar, a skin full of water, the more of a type because of the hope of her
conversion. 36 This was to show the power of the “laver of regeneration,” 37
which has been given to unbelievers for a gift of life, and for the conver-
sion of all the heathen to the knowledge of the truth.

7,6 But Abraham’s gifts to Keturah’s children were wealth — gold, silver,
clothing, and whatever Abraham secretly hid in their wallets, the “frank-
incense, myrrh and gold” 38 of the companions of the kings of Sodom and
Gomorrah, which < had been plundered by > Chedorlaomer’s allies. They
had taken prisoners from Sodom, Gomorrah and the other towns, had
made off with their horses, captured most of the people, and seized the
wealth and possessions of each king and the greater part of the others.
(7) Abraham brought [all] this back “from the slaughter of the kings” 39
at that time. But he did not dare to return things already reserved for
the Lord God and instead, as I find in the traditions of the Hebrews, gave
them as gifts, along with his other gifts, to his sons by Keturah.

8,1 These children of Abraham by Keturah were cast out by Abraham,
and settled in Magodia in Arabia. The same gifts <were offered> to Christ
in Bethlehem < by > the magi who came from their land and, when they
had seen the star and come, offered presents and gifts in order to share
in the same hope. (2) The prophet gives plain indication of these gifts
by saying, “Before the child is able to cry Father or Mother, he shall take
the power of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of the
Assyrians.” 40 For as I said, these were taken from Damascus in Abraham’s
time, and from Samaria, by the kings on their raid. (3) Now when did
Christ receive them “before he could cry Father of Mother” except when
the magi came and “opened their wallets” — or “treasures,” as some copies
say — “and offered myrrh, frankincense and gold?” 41

And do you see how the truth’s expressions go, and the consequences
of them? (4) These sects too are concubines, and their children have
received gifts. But the concubines have received only the name, and have
only been called by Christ’s name and received their few texts from the

35 Jer 3:8.

36 I.e., Hagar’s, “return”.

37 Tit 3:5.

38 Matt 2:11.

39 Gen 14:16-17.

40 Isa 8:4.

41 Matt 2:11.

DE FIDE

663

sacred scripture, so that, if they choose, they can understand the truth by
these. (5) But if they prefer not to, but return to Herod — (for they are told
not to return to Herod, but to go to their country by another way.) But if
they do not do as they are told the gifts are no good to them, just as their
coming would have done the magi no good if they had returned to Herod.
For these same sects debase the teachings of God’s oracles in a way that
resembles Herod’s.

9,1 These, then, are < the > eighty concubines, so numbered in scrip-
ture. And the individuals listed by generation are those queens, that is,
men and patriarchs. But the young girls without number consist of the
further philosophies all over the world and the ways of life, one praisewor-
thy and one not, of each individual. (2) For who can count the variety of
this world? How many other sects have not grown up among the Greeks
after the four most famous ones which we have mentioned — and further,
after those sects and the ones after them, how many individuals and ideas
keep arising of themselves, with seeming “youth,” in accordance with the
opinion of each? (3) There are some called Pyrrhonians, for example, and
many others. Since I have learned of many I shall give their names and
their opinions in order below, but < this > is a fraction of the ones in the
world. (4) And the ones which follow are Greek sects. As the first of them
I should begin with the opinion and belief of Thales of Miletus.

g,5 For Thales of Miletus himself, who was one of the seven sages,
declared that the primal origin of all things is water. For he says that
everything originates from water and is resolved back into water.

9.6 Anaximander the son of Praxiades, also a Milesian, said that the
infinite is the first principle of all things. For all things originate from this
and all things are resolved into it.

9.7 Anaximenes the son of Eurystatus, also a Milesian, said that air is
the first principle of all things, and that everything originates from this.

9.8 Anaxagoras the son of Hegesibulus, of Clazomene, said that identi-
cal particles are the first principles of all things.

9.9 Archelaus < the > naturalist, the son of Apollodorus — some say the
son of Milton, but he was Athenian — says that all things have originated
from earth. For this is the first principle of all things, or so he says.

9.10 Socrates the ethicist, the son of Sophroniscus the statuary 42 and
Phaenaretes the midwife, said that man must mind his own affairs but
nothing more.

42 Diels sppoyXucpou MSS EApayAou, an improbable name.

664

DE FIDE

9.11 Pherecydes too said that earth came into being before all things.

9.12 Pythagoras of Samos, the son of Mnesarchus, said that God is the
unit, and that nothing has come into being apart from this. But he said
that the wise must not sacrifice animals to the gods, and must certainly
not eat meat or beans, or drink wine. He said that everything from the
moon down is passible, but that everything above the moon is impas-
sible. And he said that the soul migrates into many animals. He also com-
manded his disciples to maintain silence for five years, and in the end
pronounced himself a god.

g,i3 Xenophanes the son of Orthomenus, from Colophon, said that all
things are made of earth and water. All things are, or so he said, but noth-
ing is true. Thus what is certain is not clear; all things, especially invisible
things, are matters of opinion.

9.14 Parmenides the son of Pyres, an Elean, also said that the infinite is
the first principle of all things.

9.15 Zeno of Elea, the controversialist. Like the other Zeno he said
both that the earth is immoveable and that there is no void. He also says
the following: That which must be moved is moved either in the place in
which it is, or the place in which it is not. And it can neither be moved
in the place in which it is, nor in the place in which it is not; therefore
nothing is moved.

g,i6 Melissus the son of Ithagenes, the Samian, said that everything
is one, but that it is by not nature enduring; all things are potentially
destructible.

9,17 Leucippus the Milesian — though some say that he was an Elean —
was also a controversialist. He too said that everything is in the infinite,
and that all events take place in imagination and appearance. There are
no real events; they are apparent, like an oar in the water.

g,i8 Democritus of Abdera, the son of Damasippus, said that the world
is infinite and is situated above a void. But he also said that there is one
end of all, and that contentment is best, but that pains are the boundaries
of evil. And what appears just is not just; the unjust is the opposite of
nature. For he said that laws are an evil invention, and < that > the wise
should not obey laws, but live freely.

g,ig Metrodorus of Chios said that no one understands anything. We
have no precise understanding of the things we think we know; and we
should pay no heed to our senses, for all things are appearance.

g,2o Protagoras of Abdera, the son of Menander, said that there are no
gods, and that God does not exist at all.

DE FIDE

665

g,2i Diogenes of Smyrna, or some say he was from Cyrene, held the
same opinions as Protagoras.

g,22 Pyrrho of Elis collected all the doctrines of the other sages and
wrote objections to them to demolish their opinions. He was not satisfied
with any doctrine.

g,23 Empedocles of Agrigentum, the son of Meto, introduced fire, earth,
water and air as the four primal elements, and said that originally there
was enmity between the elements. For earlier they had been separated,
he said, but now, as he says, they have been united in friendship. In his
opinion, then, there are two first principles and powers, enmity and love,
the one of which is unitive, the other, divisive.

g,24 Heraclitus of Ephesus, the son of Bleso, said that all things come
from fire and are resolved back into fire.

g,25 Prodicus calls the four elements, and then the sun and the moon,
gods; for he said that the vital principle of all things comes from these.

g,26 Plato the Athenian said that there are God, matter and form, but
that the world is generate and mortal while the soul is ingenerate, immor-
tal and divine. But there are three parts of the soul, the rational, the spir-
ited, and the appetitive. And he said that marriages and wives should be
common to all, and that no one should have one spouse to himself, but
that anyone who wishes may have relations with any women who are
willing.

g,27 Aristippus of Cyrene. He was gluttonous and pleasure-loving, and
said that the pleasure is the goal of the soul, and that whoever experi-
ences pleasure is happy. But one who never experiences pleasure is thrice
wretched, as he says, and unfortunate.

g,28 Theodoras, who is called the atheist, said that discussion of God
is silly. For he believed that there is nothing divine, and therefore urged
everyone to steal, forswear themselves, rob, and not die for their coun-
tries. For he said that the world is one country and that only the happy
man is good, and that the unfortunate < must > be avoided even if he is
wise. And a fool, if he is wealthy and an unbeliever, is preferable [to such
a “wise” man].

g,2g Hegesias of Cyrene. This man said that there is no such thing as
love or gratitude. They do not exist; one does a favor because he is in
need [of a favor], or confers a benefit because he has suffered something
worse [by not conferring it]. He also said the following: Life is profitable
for a bad man, but death for a good one. Hence some have called him the
advocate of death.

666

DE FIDE

g,30 Antisthenes, who had a Thracian mother but was Athenian him-
self, was first a Socratic and then a Cynic. He said that we must not envy
the good deeds of others or their shameful behavior to one another; and
that the walls of a city are vulnerable to the traitor within, but the walls
of the soul are unshakeable and unbreachable.

9,31 Diogenes the Cynic who was from Sinope in Pontus, agreed with
Antisthenes in everything. He said that the good is natural 43 to every
wise man but that everything else is simply foolishness.

g,32 Crates of Thebes in Boeotia, also a Cynic, said that poverty is lib-
erty.

g,33 Arcesilaus said that the truth is accessible to God alone, but not
to man.

g,34 Carneades was of the same opinion as Arcesilaus.

9,35 Aristotle the son of Nicomachus is said by some to be a Mace-
donian from Stagyra, but a few say that he was Thracian. He said that
there are two first principles, God and matter, and that things above the
moon are subject to divine providence, but that what is below the moon is
not ruled by providence but borne along at random by some unreasoned
motion. But he says that there are two worlds, the world above and the
world below, and that the world above is immortal while the world below
is mortal. And he says that the soul is the entelechy of the body.

g,36 Theophrastus of Ephesus held the same opinions as Aristotle.

g,37 Strato of Lampsacus said that heat is the cause of all things. He
said that the parts of the world are infinite, and that everything living is
capable of having a mind.

9.38 Praxiphanes of Rhodes held the same opinions as Theophrastus.

9.39 Critolaus of Phasela held the same opinions as Aristotle.

9.40 Zeno of Citieum, the Stoic, said that we must not build temples
for gods but keep the Godhead in our minds alone — or rather, regard the
mind as God, for it is immortal. We should consign the dead to wild beasts
or fire. We may indulge in pederasty without restraint. But he said that
the divine permeates all things. The causes of things sometimes depend
on us and sometimes do not depend on us — that is, some things are up
to us while some are not.

He also said that < the soul persists for some time* > after its separa-
tion from the body, and called the soul a long-lived spirit but said that is

43 Zeller oixeiov; MSS oIcttov.

DE FIDE

667

certainly not fully immortal. For it is exhausted to the point of extinction
by the length of its existence, or so he says.

9,4r Cleanthes says that pleasures are the good and noble, and he called
only the soul man, and said that the gods are characters in mysteries, and
holy calls. And he claimed that the sun is a torch and the world < is holy,
and men are* > initiates, and the possessed are priests of the gods.

9.42 Persaeus taught the same doctrines as Zeno.

9.43 Chrysippus of Soli wrote infamous laws. For he said that sons
must have relations with their mothers and daughters with their fathers.
For the rest he agreed with Zeno of Citieum. But besides this, he said
that we should eat human flesh. But he said that the goal of all is to live
pleasantly.

9.44 Diogenes of Babylon said that all things consist of pleasure.

9.45 Panaetius of Rhodes said that the universe is immortal and unag-
ing, ignored divination, and pooh poohed what is said about the gods. For
he said that the discussion of God is chatter.

9.46 Posidonius of Apamaea said that man’s highest good is wealth
and health.

9.47 Athenodorus of Tarsus held the same opinions as Chrysippus, and
taught the same doctrines as Zeno.

9.48 Epicurus the son of Neocles, who was reared in Athens, pursued
a life of pleasure and, as I said of him at the outset, was not ashamed to
have relations in public with licentious women. 44 He said in his turn that
there are no gods, but that mere chance governs all things. And nothing
in the world comes of our own will — not learning, lack of education, or
anything else — but that all things happen to everyone unwilled. And it is
no use to blame anyone, as he says, or to praise anyone; people do not
undergo these things voluntarily.

But he said that death is not to be feared. And as I have said already, he
maintained both that everything consists of atoms, and that the universe
is infinite.

10,1 And these are the Greek philosophers I have learned of. But there
are as many others throughout the barbarian and Greek parts of the Roman
realm and the other regions of the world. (2) There are seventy-two repul-
sive philosophies in the Indian nation, those of the gymnosophists, the

44 Epicurus is discussed at 1,1,8, but Epiphanius does not say this there. It is likely that
he is here quoting a handbook, perhaps the same one in which he found the material for
Sects 1,1, 5-8.

668

DE FIDE

Brahmans (these are the only praiseworthy ones), the Pseudo-brahmans,
the corpse-eaters, the practitioners of obscenity, and those who are past
feeling. Because of the great corruption in men, and their practice of evil
and < obscenity* >, I consider it unnecessary and not worth my while to
speak specifically of the Indian sects and the disgusting things they do.
(3) For again, it is said that there are six different sects in Media, and
as many in Ethiopia — and among the Persians, or in Parthia, Elamitis,
Caspia, Germany, and Sarmatia, or however many there are among the
Dauni, or among the Zikchi, Amazons, Lazi, Iberians, Bosporenes, Geli,
Chinese or the other nations, there are < any number > of different laws,
philosophies and sects and a countless throng of varieties.

10.4 For instance, Chinese men stay at home and weave, and anoint
themselves and do womanly things in readiness for their wives. And in
reverse, the women cut their hair short, wear men’s underclothing, and
do all the field labor. But among the Geli, on the contrary, those who do
evil are held by their laws to be praiseworthy.

10.5 And how many mysteries and rites do the Greeks have? For
example, the women who go to the rnegara, 45 and those who celebrate
the Thesmophoria, are different from each other. And there are as many
others: the Eleusinian mysteries of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis,
and the shocking goings-on in the sanctuaries there — the unclothing of
women, to put it politely, drums and cakes, the bull-roarer and the basket,
the worked wool, the cymbal, and the potion prepared in the beaker.

And just as many others. The mysteries of Archemorus in Pythia (6)
and others on the Isthmus, those of Athamas and Melicertes the child of
Ino. And all the men who turn the phallus over, and the < women > who
celebrate 46 the obscene rites, and the men who serve Rhea by castrating
male children and living their lives without male organs, certainly unable
to be men any longer, but without having become women. (7) And other
Dionysians, those who are initiated into the Curetes and their distribution
of meat, who are crowned with snakes and raise the cry of “Va, Va!” Either
they are still calling on that Eve who was deceived by the snake, or else
they are summoning the snake to their imposture in ancient Hebrew. For
by the plain interpretation “Eve” means the woman; but in the ancient
language native Hebrew speakers call the snake “chawah.”

45 Pits into which pigs were thrown at the Thesmaphoria.

46 Holl sopTCf^ouTOi . . . < yuvoiixE(;>, MSS <p«W.ap(?oi)<7ai.

DE FIDE

669

11.1 And “What shall I say? For the time will fail me if I tell” 47 of the
countless differences in people’s various practices, as well as in their vir-
tue and their vice. (2) As many others in Egypt, who are initiates of Cronus
and make a show of putting iron collars on their necks, having their hair
loose on top, < wearing > filthy, absurd clothing, and piercing their nostrils
as though for nose rings at each [festival] of Cronus in the town called
Astus. (This is a small town in Egypt, the chief village of the so-called
nome of Prosopitis.) This is how they follow the unclean rites of the gen-
eral assembly of deluded persons, and the mad instructions of the drum
beating ecstatics, if you please! But these people are hopelessly lost.

11,3 But just as many of the others! For instance, the cult of Harpo-
crates near Buticus, or the little town of Butus itself. They are already
elders in years, < but are children in behavior* >, and are compelled by
the daemon to enact the imaginary frenzies of Horus at the sacred month.
(4) But each citizen — even an elder already far along in years, together
with young women of the same persuasion, and other ages from youth
up — are supposedly priests of this Horus, and of Harpocrates. Their heads
are shaved and they shamelessly carry the slavish, as well as accursed and
childish emblem, willingly taking part in the games of the daemon’s initi-
ates laughing madly and foolishly, and cast off all restraint. (5) First they
smear their faces with porridge, flour and other vulgarities, and then they
dip their faces in a boiling cauldron and deceitfully madden the crowds
with their faces, for a supposed miracle; and they wipe the stuff off their
faces with their hands, and give some to anyone who asks, to partake of
for their health’s sake and as a remedy for their ills.

12.1 But if I were to describe the woman ecstatics in Memphis < and >
Heliopolis who bewitch themselves with drums and flutes, and the danc-
ing girls, and the performers at the triennial festival — and the women at
Bathys and in the temple of Menuthis who have abandoned shame and
womanliness — to what burdens for the tongue, or what a long compo-
sition I could commit myself, by adding their countless number [itself]
to the number I have already given! (2) For even though 1 were to take
on the enormous task 1 would leave our comprehension of these things
incomplete, since scripture says that there are “young women without
number.” 48 ^) The rites at Sais and Pelusium, at Bubastis and Abydus, the
temples of Antinous and the mysteries there. The rites at Pharbetis, those

47 Heb 11:32.

48 Cant 6:8.

670

DE FIDE

of Mendesius’ goat, all the mysteries in Busiris, all the ones in Sebennytus,
all the ones in Diospolis, where they sometimes perform rites for the ass
in the name of Seth, or Typho, if you please, while others < worship* >
Tithambro, or Hecate, and others are initiates of Senephthy, others of
Thermuthi, others of Isis. (4) And how many things of this sort can be
said! < If one tries > to name them specifically it will consume a great
deal of time. The entire subject will be summed up by the phrase, “young
women without number.” 49

r2,5 But again, the names of many other mysteries, her-
esiarchs and fomenters of schism whose leaders are called Magusaeans
by the Persians but prophets by the Egyptians, and who preside over
their shrines and temples. And those Babylonian magi who are called
Gazarenes, sages and enchanters, and the Indians’ Evilei so-called, and
Brahmans, < and > the Greeks’ hierophants and temple custodians, and a
throng of Cynics, and the leaders of countless other philosophers.

r3,r As I said, then, [there are] people in Persia called Magusaeans, who
detest idols but worship planets, 50 fire, the moon and the sun. And in
Greece, again, [there are] others called Abian Musi, who drink mare’s milk
and live entirely in wild country. (2) And as many of all these as the human
mind can take in, which are called “great” and < regarded > as praisewor-
thy, there are as many different “young women without number,” 51 some
praiseworthy, some not. Some, making their practice of asceticism out of
their own heads and forming their own rule, appear in public with long
hair. Others wear sackcloth openly, though other holy brethren sit in
sackcloth and ashes at home. Still others, from their “youth,” add to their
burden with extra fasts and rules <for the sake of > a perfect conscience
towards the bridegroom.

r3,3 But others, as I said, do not act the part of “youths” rightly but arbi-
trarily from some preconception, in contradiction to the truth. Zacchaeus,
who has recently died in the hill country around Jerusalem, would never
pray with anyone. But for the same reason he freely undertook to han-
dle and consecrate the sacred mysteries although he was a layman. And
[there was] another — and he was once one of those who seemed to have
led the finest kind of life, and he lived in the hermitages in a monastery
in Egypt — (4) [he], and another man, near Sinai, who were made “young”

49 Cant 6:8.

50 Holl oroixdoi?, MSS dScoXou; which contradicts what has just been said.

51 Cant 6:8.

DE FIDE

671

by dreaming < that > they had received bishop’s orders, and undertook to
sit on thrones and perform episcopal functions.

13,5 Others, and not a few of them, have dared, from “youthfulness,” to
make themselves eunuchs, if you please, contrary to the commandments.
(6) But others, whose origins are orthodox, seem to behave like “youths”
and venture to gather their own congregations contrary to the canons.
Moreover, they rebaptize the people who come to them from the Ari-
ans, if you please, without the judgment of an ecumenical council. (7) For
because the Arian and the catholic laity are still intermingled, and many
are orthodox but are joined with the Arianizers from hypocrisy, the mat-
ter, as I said, has not yet been settled by a judgment — not until there can
be a separation of the blasphemous sect, and then its sentence will be
determined.

13,8 Of the people who rebaptize in this way by their own directive,
I have heard that one is a presbyter in Lycia. And there are others as well,
who each pray by themselves and never with anyone else; and others wear
slave’s collars contrary to the ordinance of the church. (9) And so, at the
close of the entire work, I have said that those who are “young” in their
own way, to suit their own tastes, are “without number” 52 — by no means
for good, to practice the various forms of wisdom, judgment, courage, pru-
dence and righteousness. Others of these act “young” more arbitrarily, and
perversely make themselves < strangers > to the truth, so that there is no
number of them.

14,1 But the one dove herself, the holy virgin, confesses that God is the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, a perfect Father, a perfect Son, and a
perfect Holy Spirit. She confesses that the Trinity is co-essential and that
the Trinity is not an identity, but that the Son is truly begotten of the
Father, and that the Holy Spirit is not different from the Father and the
Son, (2) but that the Trinity is everlasting, never needing addition and
containing no subordination but reduced to one unity, and one sover-
eignty of our God and Father.

And all things have been made by this Trinity of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. Once these things did not exist, and they are not contemporaneous
with God and were not in being before him; they were brought from non-
being into being by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

14,3 This Father, Son and Holy Spirit has always vouchsafed to appear in
visions to his saints, as each was able to receive [the vision] in accordance

52 Cant 6:8.

672

DE FIDE

with the gift which had been < given > him by the Godhead. This gift was
granted to each of those who were deemed worthy, sometimes to see the
Father as each was able, < sometimes > to hear his voice as well as he was
able. (4) When he said by the mouth of Isaiah, “Lo, my beloved servant
shall understand,” 53 this is the voice of the Father. And when Daniel saw
“the Ancient of Days,” 54 this is a vision of the Father. And again, when
he says in the prophet, “I have multiplied visions and been portrayed by
hands of the prophets,” 55 this is the voice of the Son. And when, in Eze-
kiel, “The Spirit of God took me” and “brought me out unto the plain,” 56
this refers to the Holy Spirit.

14,5 And there are many things of this kind that could be said. I
have mentioned parts of a few of them in passing, and quoted the two
texts to show what the church is like. But there are a million and more
like them in the sacred scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments.
(6) And [we find in the scriptures] that the Lord himself formed Adam’s
body and “breathed the breath of life into him” to make “a living soul” for
him. 57 God himself, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one Godhead,
gave the Law to Moses. The prophets were sent by the same Godhead. He
himself is our God, the God of Jews and Christians, and has called those
Jews to justification who do not deny our Lord Jesus’ advent, and saves all
who live by his true faith and do not deny the truth of the proclamation
of God’s true Gospel doctrine. (7) For the Only-begotten has come! Come!
And this is what our mother the church is like — the calm haven of peace,
the good cheer redolent of the blossoming 58 of the vine, which bears the
"cluster of blessing” 59 for us and daily grants us the drink that soothes all
anguish, the blood of Christ, unmixed, true.

r5,r [And there are texts to show] that Christ was truly born of Mary
the ever-virgin, by the Holy Spirit’s agency, not by the seed of a man. No,
he took his body from the holy Virgin herself, truly and not in appear-
ance — truly flesh, truly body, with bones, sinews and everything of ours.
He was no different from ourselves except for the glory of his holiness
and Godhead, and the holiness and righteousness of his vessel. He had

53 Isa 52:13.

54 Dan 7:9.

55 Hos 12:11.

56 Ezek 3:14; 22.

57 Gen 2:7.

58 Cf. Cant 2:13.

59 Cf. 1 Cor 10:16.

DE FIDE

673

the fullness of everything without sin, and possessed a true human soul,
a true human mind — not that I affirm the concreteness of the mind, as
others do. (2) But he possessed them all unstained by sin, a “mouth” that
did not lie, “lips that spoke no guile,” 60 a heart not inclined to rebellion, a
mind not perverted to wrong, flesh that did not did not indulge in fleshly
pleasure. He was perfect God from on high, but had not come to dwell in
a man; he himself became wholly incarnate, without changing his nature
but including his own manhood together with his Godhead.

15,3 He truly entered the Virgin’s womb, was carried for the usual
time, and was born without shame, unstained, undented, through the
birth canals. He was nursed, was embraced by Simeon and Anna, was
borne in Mary’s arms. He learned to walk, went on journeys, became a
boy and grew up in full possession of all human characteristics. His age
was counted in years and his gestation in months, (4) for he was “made
of a woman, made under the Law.” 61

He came to the Jordan and was baptized by John. This was not because
he needed cleansing but, in keeping with his manhood under the Law,
not to confuse what was right, and so that “all righteousness might be
fulfilled,” 62 as he himself said — and to show that he had taken true flesh,
true manhood. He went down into the water to give, not to receive; to
provide generously, not from need; to enlighten the water, and empower
it to become a type of those who would be perfected in it. Thus those who
truly believe in him and hold the faith of the truth would learn that he
had truly become man and truly been baptized, (5) and would therefore
come themselves with his assent, receive the power of his descent, and
be illumined by his illumination. This is the fulfillment of the oracle in
the prophet about a change of power, 63 about the giving of the power of
salvation of the bread which is taken from Jerusalem, and of the strength
of the water. (16,1) But the power of the bread and the strength of the
water are here made strong in Christ, so that not bread, but the power
of bread will be our power. Indeed, the bread is food, but the power in
it is for the generation of life. [And the water is strength], not merely so
that the water will cleanse us, but so that, by the strength of the water,

60 Cf. 1 Pet 2:22.

61 Gal 4:4.

62 Matt 3:15.

63 LXX Isa. 3:1, “Behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Judah and
Jerusalem the strong man and the strong woman, the strength of bread and the strength
of water.”

674

DE FIDE

sanctifying < power > may become ours for the achievement of our salva-
tion through faith, work, hope, the celebration of the mysteries, and the
naming [of the Trinity].

16.2 He came up out of the Jordan and heard the Father’s voice, < for
the Father bore witness* > in the hearing of the disciples who were pres-
ent, to show who it was for whom he was testifying. And as I have said in
many Sects, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove to prevent
the Trinity’s being thought an identity, since the Spirit appears in his own
person. The Spirit settled and “came upon him” 64 so that the Object of his
testimony be seen; to testify that his holy flesh is dear to the Father and
the Holy Spirit and approved by them; to declare the Father’s approval of
the Son’s incarnation; to show that the Son is a true Son; and, in fulfill-
ment of the scripture, “And after these things he appeared on the earth
and consorted with men.” 65

16.3 He came up out of the Jordan, was plainly and truly tempted by
the devil in the wilderness, and grew hungry afterwards in keeping with
and because of the reality of his human nature. (4) He chose disciples,
preached truth and healed diseases; he slept, grew hungry, made journeys,
performed miracles, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, strengthened
the lame and the palsied. He preached the Gospel, the truth, the kingdom
of heaven, and the lovingkindness of himself, the Father and the Holy
Spirit.

17,1 He truly underwent the passion for us in his flesh and perfect man-
hood. He truly suffered on the cross in company with his Godhead, though
this was not changed to passibility but was impassible and unalterable.
The two inferences can clearly be perceived: Christ suffered for us in the
flesh”; 66 but he remained impassible in his Godhead. (2) ft is not that
the manhood is a separate thing and the Godhead a separate thing; the
Godhead accompanies the manhood and yet, because of the purity and
incomparability of its essence, does not suffer. < Christ > suffered in the
flesh, however, and was put to death in the flesh, though he lives forever
in Godhead and raises the dead.

17.3 But his body was truly buried and remained lifeless for the three
days without breath and motion — wrapped in the shroud, laid in the tomb,
shut in by the stone and the seal of those who had imposed it. Yet the

64 Matt 3:16.

65 Bar 3:38.

66 1 Pet 4:1.

DE FIDE

675

Godhead was not shut in, the Godhead was not buried; (4) it descended
to the underworld with the holy soul, took the captive souls from there,
broke the “sting of death,” 67 “shattered” the bars and the unbreakable
“bolts,” 68 and by its own authority “loosed the pains of hades.” 69

It ascended with the soul, for “the soul had not been left in hell, nor
had the flesh seen corruption;” 70 (5) the Godhead had raised it or the Lord
himself, the divine Word and Son of God, had risen with soul, body and
entire vessel, with the vessel at last united with spirit. His body itself was
spirit though it had once been tangible, had been subjected to scourging
by the free consent of the Godhead, had consented to temptation by Satan
and had experienced hunger, sleep, weariness, grief and sorrow. (6) The
holy body itself was at last united with the Godhead, though the Godhead
had always been with the holy body which underwent such sufferings. For
Christ had risen and united his body with himself, as one spirit, one unity,
one glory, his own one Godhead.

17,7 For he truly appeared and was handled by Thomas, ate and drank
with the apostles and consorted with them for forty days and forty nights.
Indeed, he "entered where doors were barred,” 71 and after entering dis-
played sinews and bones, the mark of the nails and the mark of the lance.
For it was indeed the body itself, (8) since it had been joined to one unity
and one Godhead, with no further expectation of suffering, no further
death, as the holy apostle says, “Christ is risen, he dieth no more; death
hath no more dominion over him.” 72 What had been passible remains
forever impassible, the divine nature with body, soul, and all its human
nature, (g) He is very God and has ascended into the heavens and taken
his seat at the Father’s right hand in glory, not by discarding his body but
by uniting it to spirit in the perfection of one Godhead, just as our own
bodies, though “sown as natural bodies” for now, “will be raised spiritual;
though sown in corruption for now, will be raised in incorruption; though
sown in mortality for now will be raised in immortality.” 73

17,10 Now if such is the case with our [own] bodies, how much more
with that holy, inexpressible, incomparable, pure body united with God,

67 1 Cor 15:55-56.

68 Cf. Ps 106:16.

69 Acts 2:24.

70 Cf. Acts 2:27; Ps 15:10.

71 Cf. John 20:19; 26.

72 Rom 6:9.

73 Cf 1 Cor 15:44; 53.

676

DE FIDE

the one body in its final uniqueness? The apostle also testifies to this and
says, “Even if we knew Christ after the flesh, now know we him no more.” 74
(11) It is not that he separated his flesh from his Godhead; < he displayed
it* > as it was and united with his Godhead, no longer fleshly but spiritual,
as the scripture says, “according to the Spirit of holiness after the resur-
rection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 75 At the same time [he
displayed] this flesh divine, impassible and yet having suffered — and hav-
ing been buried, having risen, having ascended in glory, coming to judge
the quick and the dead as the scripture truly says, “Of his kingdom there
shall be no end.” 76

18,1 For our mother, the holy church herself, believes as has been truly
preached to her and enjoined upon her, that we shall all fall asleep and
be raised with this body, with this soul, with our whole vessel, “that each
may receive according to that he hath done.” 77 (2) It is true that the
resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment, the kingdom of heaven, and
repose < are in store > for the righteous, and the inheritance of the faith-
ful and an angelic choir is awaiting those who have kept the faith, purity,
hope and the Lord’s commandments. And it has been proclaimed, certi-
fied and believed that “These shall rise to life eternal,” 78 as we read in
the Gospels.

18,3 For whatever the apostle and all the scriptures say is true, even
though it is taken in a different sense by unbelievers and those who mis-
understand it. (4) But this is our faith, this is our honor, this is our mother
the church who saves through faith, who is strengthened through hope,
and who by Christ’s love is made perfect in the confession of faith, the
mysteries, and the cleansing power of baptism — (5) for < he says >, “Go,
baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 79
[Baptize, that is], in the name of the divine Trinity, for the name admits of
no distinction; God is preached and proclaimed to us as one in the Law,
the Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostles, in the Old and New Testa-
ments, and is believed in as one — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (6) The
Godhead is no identity but truly a perfect Trinity. The Father is perfect,
the Son is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect, one Godhead, one God, to

74 2 Cor 5:16.

75 Rom 1:4.

76 Luke 1:33.

77 2 Cor 5:10.

78 John 5:29.

79 Matt 28:19.

DE FIDE

677

whom be glory, honor and might, now and forever and to the ages of ages.
Amen.

19.1 This is the faith, the process of our salvation. This is the stay of
the truth; this is Christ’s virgin and harmless dove. This is life, hope and
the assurance of immortality. (2) But I beg all you readers to pardon my
mediocrity and the feebleness of my very limited mind — torpid and ill as
it is from a heavy dose of the sects’ poison, like the mind of a man vomit-
ing and nauseated — for the expressions I have been brought 80 to use in
referring to certain persons < with harshness* > or severity or calling them
“offenders,” “scum,” “dupes” or “frauds.” (3) Though I do not readily make
fun of anyone, I have had to dispose of them with expressions like these
to dispel certain persons’ notions. Otherwise they might think that, since
I have publicly disclosed the things the sects say and do, I have some
measure of agreement with the heresy of each of the sects.

19,4 I also composed a brief Proem 81 at the beginning of the work to
give advance assurance of this and ask for pardon, so that no one would
suppose that I turn to mockery because I am beaten, and fault me for
unpleasantness. In the Proem I also indicated which sects I would cover,
into how many Volumes I had divided the whole work, and how many
sects, and which ones, I had spoken of in each Volume. Here again I
remind us of these things, to do the readers good at every point.

20.1 There are three Volumes, and seven Sections. In Volume One
there are forty-six Sects, enumerated by name and arranged consecutively
< throughout the > Volume from the first and the second until the last. For
Volume One contains forty-six Sects in three Sections, Volume Two con-
tains twenty-three Sects in two Sections, but Volume Three, eleven in two.
(2) I beg and plead with all of you who are sharing my labor and reading
with patient effort, reap the benefit but put the sects’ odious doctrines out
of your minds. I have not made them public to do harm but to do good,
and to make sure that no one falls under their spell.

20,3 As you go through the whole work, or even parts of it, pray for me
and make request that God will give me a portion in the holy and only
catholic and apostolic church and the true, life-giving and saving < faith >,
and deliver me from every sect. (4) And if, in my humanity, I cannot reach
the full measure of the incomprehensible and ineffable Godhead, but am
still pressed to offer its defense < and > compelled to speak for God in

80 Holl y)vs/0v]<v>, Drexl and MSS y)VEy0y).

81 Pan. Proem I.

678

DE FIDE

human terms, and have been led by daring [to do so], you yourselves par-
don me, for God does. (5) And once more, pray that the Lord may give me
the portion in his holy faith which I have asked for, the only faith free of
all inconsistency, and grant the pardon of my own sins, which are many,
in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the
Father with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

21,1 I have spoken briefly of the tenets of the faith of this only catho-
lic church and harmless dove, her husband’s only wife as the scripture
says, “One is my dove.” 82 have likewise spoken of the countless “young
women without number,” 83 the co-essentiality of the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit, the fleshly and perfect advent of Christ, and other parts of
the faith. (2) But as to her ordinances, I must once more partially describe,
in a few words, as many ordinances as have actually been observed and
are being observed in the church, some by commandment, others by vol-
untary acceptance. For God rejoices in the excellence of his church.

21,3 And to begin with, the basis and, as it were, the foundation in the
church is the virginity which is practiced and observed by many, and held
in honor. But for most monks and nuns, the single life is the concomitant
of this virginity. (4) After virginity is continence, which sets out on the
same course. Next comes widowhood with all soberness and a pure life.
(5) Following these orders, lawful wedlock is held in high esteem, espe-
cially marriage to one partner only and with the observance of the com-
mandments. (6) But if a person’s wife or husband dies < and he [or she]
wants > a spouse, it is allowable to marry a second wife or husband after
the death of the first husband or wife.

21,7 But the crown, or, as it were, the mother and begetress of all these,
is the holy priesthood, which is drawn mostly from virgins, but if not from
virgins, from once-married men. (8) If there are not enough once-married
men to serve, it is composed of men who abstain from relations with their
own wives, or widowers who have had only one wife. But beginning with
the episcopal order and including presbyters, deacons and sub-deacons, it
is not permissible to receive a twice-married person for priesthood in the
church, even if he is continent < or > a widower, (g) Then, after this priest-
hood, comes the order of readers which is composed of all the orders —
that is, of virgins, once-married men, the continent, widowers, and men
who are still in lawful wedlock — if necessary, even of men who have mar-

82 Cant 6:9.

83 Cant 6:9.

DE FIDE

679

ried a second wife after the death of the first. For a reader is not a priest;
he is like a scribe of the Law.

21,10 Deaconesses are also appointed — only to assist women for mod-
esty’s sake, if there is a need because of baptism or an inspection of their
bodies. (11) Then, after these, come exorcists and translators < from > one
language to another, either in readings or in sermons. But finally there are
undertakers, who enshroud the bodies of those who fall asleep; and door-
keepers, and the whole good order [of the laity].

22,1 On the apostles’ authority services are set for the fourth day of the
week, the eve of the Sabbath, and the Lord’s Day. 84 But we fast till the
ninth hour on the fourth day and the eve of the Sabbath, because the Lord
was arrested at the beginning of the fourth day and crucified on the eve
of the Sabbath. (2) And the apostles taught us to keep fasts on these days
in fulfillment of the saying, “When the bridegroom is taken from them,
that shall they fast on those days.” 85 (3) Fasting is not enjoined upon us
as a favor to Him who suffered for us, but so that we may confess that the
Lord’s passion to which he consented for us < has become > our salvation,
and that our fasts may be acceptable to God for our sins. (4) And < this >
fasting is observed throughout the year in this holy catholic church —
I mean fasting till the ninth hour on the fourth day and the eve of the Sab-
bath — (5) with the sole exception of the full Pentecost of fifty days, during
which neither kneeling nor fasting is enjoined, but services are held in the
early morning hours as on the Lord’s Day, in place of those at the ninth
hour on the fourth day and the eve of the Sabbath. (6) But moreover,
there is no fasting < or kneeling > during the fifty days of Pentecost, as I
said, or on the Day of the Epiphany when the Lord was born in the flesh,
even though it may be the fourth day or the eve of the Sabbath.

22,7 But the church’s ascetics fast with a good will every day except the
Lord’s Day and Pentecost, and hold continual vigils. (8) This holy catholic
church regards all the Lord’s Days as days for enjoyment, however, and
holds services at dawn, < but > does not fast; it is inappropriate to fast on
a Lord’s Day. (g) The church also observes the forty days before the seven
days of the holy Passover with fasts every day, but never fasts on Lord’s
Days, or on the actual fortieth day [before Easter].

22, ro All of the laity eat dry fare every day — I mean by taking only
bread, salt and water in the evening — during the six days of the Passover.

84 Cf. Didascalia 21.

85 Luke 5:35.

68o

DE FIDE

(11) Moreover, the zealous do two, three and four times more than this,
and some [fast] the entire week until cockcrow at the dawn of the Lord’s
Day, and keep vigil on all six days. Again, they hold services from the
ninth hour until evening during these six days, and on the whole fortieth
day [before the Passover]. (12) But in some places they hold vigils only
from the dawn of the day after the fifth until the eve of the Sabbath, and
the Lord’s Day. (13) In some places the liturgy is performed at the ninth
hour of the fifth day at the close of the vigil, but they are still on dry fare.
(14) In other places there is no liturgy except at dawn on the Lord’s Day
when the vigil closes at about cockcrow on the Day of the Resurrection,
and with a festal assembly on the principal day of the Passover, as has
been prescribed. But the other mysteries, baptism and the private mys-
teries, are performed in accordance with the tradition of the Gospel and
the apostles.

23.1 They make memorials for the dead by name, offering prayers and
the liturgy. There are always hymns at dawn and prayers at dawn in this
holy church, as well as psalms and prayers at lamp-lighting time.

23.2 Some of the church’s monks live in the cities, but some reside in
monasteries and retire far from the world. (3) Some, if you please, see fit
to wear their hair long as a custom of their own devising, though the Gos-
pel did not command this, and the apostles did not allow it. For the holy
apostle Paul has forbidden this style.

23,4 But there are other, excellent disciplines which are observed in
this catholic church, I mean abstinence from meat of all kinds — four-
footed animals, birds, fish, eggs and cheese; and various other customs,
since "Each shall receive his reward according to his labor.” 86 (5) And
some abstain from all of these, while some abstain only from four-footed
animals, but eat birds and the rest. Others also abstain from birds, but eat
eggs and fish. Others do not even eat eggs, while others eat only fish. Oth-
ers abstain from fish too but eat only cheese, while others do not even eat
cheese. And at the present time still others abstain from bread, and others
from fruits and vegetables.

23,6 Many monks sleep on the ground, and others do not even wear
shoes. Others wear sackcloth under their clothing — the ones who wear it
properly, for virtue and repentance. It is inappropriate to appear publicly
in sackcloth, as some do; and, as I said, it is also inappropriate to appear

86 1 Cor 3:8.

DE FIDE

68l

in public wearing collars, as some prefer to. But most monks abstain from
bathing.

23,7 And some monks have renounced their means of livelihood, but
devised light tasks for themselves which are not troublesome, so that they
will not lead an idle life or eat at others’ expense. (8) Most are exercised
in psalms and constant prayers, and in readings, and recitations by heart,
of the holy scriptures.

24.1 The custom of hospitality, kindness, and almsgiving to all has been
prescribed for all members of this holy catholic and apostolic church.
(2) The church has baptism in Christ in place of the obsolete circumci-
sion, < and > rests in the Great Sabbath instead of on the lesser sabbath.

24.3 The church refrains from fellowship with any sect. It forbids forni-
cation, adultery, licentiousness, idolatry, murder, all law-breaking, magic,
sorcery, astrology, palmistry, the observation of omens, charms, and amu-
lets, the things called phylacteries. (4) It forbids theatrical shows, hunting,
horse < races >, musicians and all evil-speaking and slander, all quarreling
and blasphemy, injustice, covetousness and usury. (5) It does not accept
actors, but regards them as the lowest of the low. It accepts offerings from
people who are not wrongdoers and law-breakers, but live righteously.

24,6 It continually enjoins prayers to God at the appointed night hours
and after the close of the day, with all frequency, fervor, and bowing of the
knee. (7) In some places they also hold services on the Sabbaths, but not
everywhere. By the command of the Savior the best refrain entirely from
swearing, abuse and cursing, and certainly from lying, as far as this is in
their power. But most sell their goods and give to the poor.

25.1 Such is the character of this holy < mother of ours >, together with
her faith as we have described it; and these are the ordinances that obtain
in her. For this is the character of the church, and by the will of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit it is drawn from the Law, the Prophets, the
Apostles and the Evangelists, like a good antidote compounded of many
perfumes for the health of its users. (2) These are the features of this chaste
bride of Christ; this is her dowry, the covenant of her inheritance, and the
will of her bridegroom and heavenly < king >, our Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom and with whom be glory, honor and might to the Father with the
Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.

25.3 All the brethren who are with me greet your Honors, especially
Anatolius whose task, with much labor and the utmost good will, has
been to transcribe and correct the work against these sects, I mean the
eighty, in shorthand notes. (4) His most honored fellow deacon Hypatius

682

DE FIDE

also [greets you], who copied the transcription from notes to quires [of
papyrus]. Please pray for them, my most honored and truly beloved breth-
ren. (5) The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and his grace, and his truth in
accordance with his commandment, be with you all, my most scholarly
beloved brethren! Amen.

INDEX

Note: References to sects and sectarian leaders are generally to mentions which occur
outside of the principal discussions. For the principal discussions, consult the Table of
Contents and the Anacephalaeoses.

Aaron 2, 33, 53, 80, 81, 91, 92, 317, 441,

507, 626, 638

Ahgar, bishop of Cyrus 472
Ahgar of Edessa 88
Abidas 88

Abraham 13, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 45, 77, 79,
80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 113, 133, 174, 179,

186, 268, 289, 291, 311, 317, 319, 322, 323,
35h 352. 382, 389, 417. 418, 432, 479. 485,
486, 587, 619, 638, 648, 652, 654, 658,

661, 662

abstention from work 277-278, 648, 681
abstinence from bathing 681
abstinence from foods 14, 71, 139, 217, 319,
323, 426, 680

abstinence from sexual relations 103, 107,
652, 678
Acacians 470

Acacius, bishop of Caesarea 471
actors not admitted to the church 681
Acts of Pilate 24

Acvas, Manichaean missionary 226
Adam

buried on Golgotha 212
created in First Man's image 259, 275
ecstasy of sleep 10, 11
expulsion of 16, 70, 415
knowledge of Eve 372-373
loses the image of God 138, 415, 416
Adamians 1

Addas, Manichaean missionary 232, 239,
261

adoptionism 380, 382, 397, 440
adoptive wives 131, 132, 323, 624
aeons, Valentinian 55, 60, 438
Aerius, biography 411-412
Aetians 137, 221, 412, 483
Aetius, the Anomoean

alleged understanding of God 412
biography 412
episcopal consecration 511
exile 483, 512
moral laxism 515
Syntagmation 511

Agabus 13, 286, 490

Alexander, bishop of Alexandria 329,

333. 334. 335. 336, 338, 339, 340, 341
Alexander, bishop of Constantinople 328
Ambrose, patron of Origen 135, 136
Ammonius 337, 441
Anathemas on Trinitarian subjects 442,
455, 456, 457, 458, 467
Anatolius, Epiphanius’ amanuensis 681
Anaxagoras 663
Anaximander 663
Ancoratus 356, 483

excerpt from, on the Holy Spirit
484-499

Ancrya, Council of (358 a.d.) 444

Ancyra, encyclical of Council of (Basil of
Ancyra) 444-458

Andrew 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 624,
639

angels 33, 39, 52, 65, 68, 89, 115, 133, 137,
152, 159, 172, 173, 174, 207, 256, 315, 389,
390, 39i, 403, 404, 560, 562, 606
created in order to care for creation
161, 220

creation of 169, 220, 365, 374, 377-378,
496, 55h 560, 561

one species of immortals among many
172, 173, 174, 345, 346, 568
Anianus, bishop of Antioch 468, 473
Ann and Joachim, parents of Mary 630,
641

Anomoeans 137, 221, 412, 483
Antichrist 7, 28, 475
Antidicomarians 581
Antioch, Council of, 268 a.d. 216, 226,
428

Antioch, Council of, Second 341 a.d. 445
Antioch, Council of, Third 429
Antisthenes 666

Antoninus Pius, emperor 6, 88, 247
Antoninus Verus (Marcus Aurelius)
emperor 88

apocryphal Acts of Apostles 536, 646
Apocryphon of Ezekiel 208, 209

684

INDEX

Apollinarius, bishop of Laodicaea 249,
583. 584, 585. 586, 603, 604, 608, 609,
615, 616

Apollonius, imperial official 18, 88, 471
apostles, earning living 650
Apostolics 61, 123
Apotactics 2, 116

Arabia 1, 2, 52, 79, 227, 302, 331, 427,
616-636, 637, 662
Arcesilaus 666
Archelaus 36, 238, 596, 623

opponent of Mani 234, 235, 237-238,
239

written refutation of Mani 249,
252-26r

Archelaus, son of Apollodorus 663
Archon

chief 256, 277
of darkness 260, 281, 282
of destruction 256
of righteousness 84
archons 230, 236, 249, 251, 261, 272, 273,
274-275, 281, 284, 290
create man in their image 280, 304
creation of Adam and Eve 259-260
crucified by Living Spirit 254, 262
eat First Man’s armor 253, 257, 259,
270, 271, 304

robbed of their power 251, 256, 277
Archontics roo, 274, 6r7
Arian factions 459, 468
Arians 2r5, 22r, 248, 328, 329, 330, 332,
412. 433. 468, 472, 479, 513, 514, 544, 565,
579, 584, 592, 602, 636, 67r
Ariminum, Council of, 359 a.d. 467, 469
Aristippus of Cyrene 665
Aristotle 398, 556, 666
Arius 99, roo, U5, r25, 327, 328, 448
biography 215
death 324

deposition of 4r3, 444
to Eusebius of Nicomedia 327-329,
339

exposed by Melitius 326, 335
interpretation of Prov 8:22 343, 353
Letter of Athanasius 583-593
Arsenius, alleged victim of
Athanasius 330, 331, 332
Artotyrites 1, 22, 23
Ascension of Isaiah 319
Asclepius, bishop of Gaza 336
Asia 27, 445, 489, 624
Asterius, Arian writer 437, 439, 440, 513

Athanasius, bishop of Scythopolis 482
Athanasius of Alexandria 334, 599
accused at Tyre 330-331
attitude towards Marcellus 436
consecrated 329, 340-341
Epistle to Epicretus of Corinth 582,
583-593

exile to Italy 331-332
refutation of Mani 249
Athenodorus of Tarsus 667
atonement 486, 587, 632. See also
redemption
Audians 411

Audius, biography 413, 426

Aurelian, emperor 216, 227, 246, 248, 305

Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan 150,

15L 583

baptism

Christian 104, 109, 119, 415, 417, 500,

505, 534, 643, 676, 679, 680, 681
Eunomian style of 412, 579, 580
the first/decisive repentance 104-105
of Jesus 33, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 51,
596, 639

non-Christian 23
repentance after 109, 112, 113
baptismal formula 500
Bardesanes 88, 89, 90, 91
Bardesians 2

Basil, bishop of Ancyra 428, 444, 467, 482
Basil, bishop of Galatia 436
bathing 186, 626, 627

abstained from by Christian monks
681

forbidden Manichaean elect 257
battle between light and darkness
(Manichaean) 253-254
begetting of the Son 93, 125, 379, 381,

392, 432, 438, 439, 454, 455, 527, 531, 535,
537, 542, 544, 547, 548, 552, 559, 566,

569, 570

alleged to involve suffering 91-94, 217,
344, 355, 364

Arian version of the begetting 341,

343, 353, 355-356
eternal and not in time 398, 399
without passion/suffering/ physical
effect 355, 461, 464, 465, 477
bishop and presbyter said to be the
same 505, 506

bishops of Jerusalem, circumcised 421,
422

INDEX

685

blood accusation 1, 21
body, human

= “flesh” 185-186

can be subject to God’s Law 182, 183,
184, 185

immortality of 163, 164, 165
as microcosm 256
as part of the Darkness (Manichaean)
252, 258

prison of the fallen soul 156, 157, 158,
159

resurrection of the 24, 101, 168, 173,

174, 175- 187, 196, 203, 211, 215, 317, 318,
321, 435, 605
source of sin 156
spiritual 197, 198, 207
body of Christ

arose from Wisdom 350, 353, 450-452,
453. 455. 467

brought down from on high 583, 585,
673

co-essential with the Godhead 581,
586, 587, 590

eternally begotten 585, 617-618
without mind 581, 582, 599, 601, 602,
603, 604, 605

as Word made flesh 430, 581, 584, 585,
587-593, 600, 603-604, 607, 610, 6n
Book of the Mysteries (Manichaean) 229
Book of the Summaries (Kephalaia) 229
born of God 271

bread, Manichaean prayer before eating
258

bread and cheese as eucharistic elements

burial of Jesus 301
Cainites 617

Callinicus, Melitian bishop of
Pelusium 328
Carinus, emperor 248
Carneades 666
Cams, emperor 248
castration 2, 100, 101, 102-103, 133, 304,
318, 668, 671

catechumen (Manichaean) 237, 257, 258,
278, 280, 616
Cathari (Purists) 2, 116
celibacy 3, 628
Celsus 34
Cerdonians 617
Cerinthus 27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 38
Chaamu, rites 52

children cannot be saved 318, 320, 321
Christ See also body of Christ; human
nature of Christ; Incarnation of Christ;
natures of Christ
alleged to exist only from Mary’s
time 411, 428, 429, 430
called Immanuel 591, 592, 596, 642
conception of 351, 478, 628, 642
date of crucifixion of 55
dates of conception of 61-62
divinity of 73, 127, 128, 217, 343, 362,
363. 365. 402, 429, 454, 476, 488
glorification/spiritualization of the
risen 395, 405, 562, 588, 675-676
Holy Spirit allegedly greater than 428
human mind in Jesus replaced by
608-612

impassibility of divine nature of 55,
58, 89, 149, 353, 363, 365, 369, 370,
377, 395, 457, 487, 559, 597, 609-610,
674, 675, 676

Mary allegedly not the mother of 234
priesthood of 364, 365, 366
psilanthropism 2, 27, 28, 32, 45, 73,
77-78, 93, 216, 223, 351, 361, 375, 390
resurrection of body of 58, 59, 370,
387, 394, 601, 676
revealed in female form 1, 22, 72
son of David 30, 31, 269, 351, 486, 585,
592, 625

sufferings of 585, 675
transcendence of 466, 476, 532, 534,
612

transfiguation of 145, 149, 408, 596
virgin birth of 30, 31, 73, 269, 587-588,
620-621, 630, 673
chronology of Jesus' life 35-63
Chrysippus 667
Church of the Martyrs 326
circumcision 25, 33, 34, 80, 217, 247, 363,
422, 490, 499, 588, 613, 614, 681
Claudius, emperor 13, 37, 66
Cleanthes 667
Cleobius 32
Cleobulus 32, 237
clergy

abolition of 81

apostles as preachers 650

celibacy of 628

circumcised priesthood 80

deaconesses 639, 640, 679

earn their living 650

living in luxury and wantonness 413

686

INDEX

Mary not allowed 638-639
ordained by Melitius 326, 327
priestesses 640

standards of behavior 106-107, 110,

650, 678

suppored by laity 650
women as 1, 22, 639
clod of earth (Manichaean) 259, 260
co-esssential. See homoousion
coitus interruptus 131
Colluthians 334
Colluthus 334, 335
Collyridians 581
Colorbasians 617

conception of Christ, suggested dates
61-62

concubines, eighty = sects 653, 654, 657,
660, 661, 663

confessors 132, 135, 325, 326, 327, 328,

330, 336, 416, 44i. 443. 469, 510
Constans, emperor 332, 334
Constantine, emperor 248, 327, 328, 330,
33h 332, 333. 334, 339, 340, 342, 421, 479
Constantius, emperor 248, 332, 334, 342,
412, 428, 429, 444, 445, 468, 469, 470,

512, 580, 646

consulships during Jesus’ lifetime 51, 53,
54-55

Consummation 8, 259, 286, 292
continence 1, 5, 105, 107, 122, 197, 215, 288,
318, 622, 628
of Adamians 69
in marriage 14, 118, 119, 652
of Paul 103

required for priesthood 14, 106, 107,

678

and salvation 317, 321
and subjection of body 183, 313
Core 51, 52, 635
Council of Ancrya 358 A.D. 444
Council of Ancyra, encyclical (Basil of
Ancyra) 444-458

Council of Antioch, 268 a.d. 216, 226, 428
Council of Antioch, Second 341 a.d. 445
Council of Antioch, Third 429
Council of Ariminum 359 a.d. 467, 469
Council of Nicaea 104, 106, 327, 434, 583
Creed 421, 441, 469, 479, 503, 505, 585,
586, 600

deposes Arius 340, 584
Council of Rome 583
Council of Sardica 343 a.d. 223, 428, 444,
445

Council of Seleucia 359 a.d. 443, 469,
482, 489

Synodical Letter of 470-472
Council of Sirmium, first 351 a.d. 428,
429, 430, 43L 432, 444, 445, 460
Crates of Thebes 666
Creation

ex nihilo 553

as manifestation of God’s goodness

244, 551-552

not necessary to the Father 557-558
perfection of 541

creatures, stable and as creator intended
447

Creed of Nicaea 421, 441, 469, 479, 503,
505, 585, 586, 600
Creed of Seleucia 470-472
Criscentius 421
Critolaus of Phasela 666
crucifixion of Christ, date 55
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem 248, 468, 469,
473, 482

Cyril, elderly bishop consecrated by
Eutychius 482

Daniel 9, 67, 80, 98, 167, 672
Daniel, father of 80
Darkness (Manichaean) 252, 253-254,
258, 260, 281, 282

David 12, 79, 80, 149, 154, 158, 190, 209,
210, 219, 269, 373, 376, 378, 382, 415, 430,
435, 485, 489, 497
dawn prayers 679-680
Days of Unleavened Bread 422-423
deaconesses 639, 640, 679
dead, commemorated in liturgy 506,

509, 680

death, reason for 162, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 175

Decius, emperor 104, 134
Demas 32
Democritus 664
Demophilus, bishop 483
desire/coveting 5, no, 169, 184, 187-189,
193, 195, 256, 295, 296, 297, 298, 310, 311,
604

Devil 188-189, 192

a created being 160-163
impassibility of 160
not created evil 242-243
rebellion 161

Didascalia. See Ordinance of the Apostles
Dimoerites 581, 582, 616

INDEX

687

Diocletian, emperor 248, 316, 324, 334
Diogenes of Babylon 667
Diogenes of Smyrna 665
Diogenes the Cynic 666
divinity of Christ/Son 73, 127, 128, 217,

343. 362, 363. 365. 402, 429, 454. 476,

488

divorce 107, 108. See also marriage

Donatists 115

dove

= the Christ 46

= the church 111, 112, 397, 653, 657,

660, 661, 678

Holy Spirit descends in form of 39, 45,
48, 94, 127, 560, 674

dualism, Manichaean 228, 229, 230, 233,
235, 236, 240, 241, 244, 252-256, 290-291,
357

earth created in eight forms 254
east wind dislodges souls from moon 255
Easter. See Passover
Ebion 27, 32, 36, 38, 73
Ebionites 1, 71, 351, 367
ecstasy 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 669
Ecthesis Macrostichos 428, 429, 444
Egyptian Gospel 124
Elder (Manichaean supernatural figure)
260, 282
elders 640

elect (Manichaean term) 236, 257, 258,
259, 277, 278

elements (Manichaean) 253, 271, 272,

273, 276

Eleusis, Arian bishop 472, 505
Eleusis, bishop of Cyzicus 468
Eleutheropolis 226, 326, 468, 471
Elijah 12, 80, 81, 103, 133, 145, 149, 175, 197,
198, 309. 417. 594, 641, 648
Elkasaites 1, 71
Elxai 1, 71, 72, 257
Empedocles of Agrigentum 665
Encratites 1, 2, 6, 116, 122
Enoch 197, 291, 305, 417, 638, 658
Ephrem Syrus 51, 646
Epictetus of Corinth 582, 583
Epicurus 667
Epiphanes 131

Epiphanius, Letter to Arabia 616-636
Epiphany 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 60, 61, 679
Epistle to the Hebrews, rejected by Arians

364

Esau 5, 81

Eucharist 23, 116, 505, 643
Eudoxius, bishop of Alexandria 468, 471,
472, 482

Eunomians 412

Eunomius, Anomoean 412, 482, 483, 579,
580

eunuchs 2, 100, 101, 102-103, 133, 304, 318,
668, 671

Euphemites 581, 646, 647
Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia 327, 328,
329, 330, 33L 333, 336, 339, 340
Eusebius of Caesarea 88, 134, 135, 136,

139, 216, 227, 247, 249, 330, 336, 337
Eusebius of Emesa, refutation of Mani

249

Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste 468,
504-505

accused of Arianism 411
Eutychius, bishop of Eleutheropolis 458,
468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 482
Euzoeus, Arian bishop of Caesarea 339,
468, 472, 482

Eve 12, 22, 23, 70, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202,
254, 260, 268, 270, 279, 281, 317, 361, 372,
630, 631, 632, 637, 638, 643, 644, 652, 668
evil, origin of 242-243, 284, 285, 288,

290, 569
Evilei 670
exorcists 18, 679
Ezekiel 9, 144, 146, 208, 211, 672

fasting 25, 139, 211, 412, 417, 423, 506, 648,
679
Father

allegedly not the God of the Law 201,
282, 298, 310, 358, 387
allegedly prior to the Son 337, 338, 434
begetting of the Son 93, 125, 379, 381,
392, 432, 438, 439, 454, 455, 527, 531,
535, 537, 542, 544, 547, 548, 552, 559,
566, 569, 570

begetting of the Son allegedly involves
suffering 355, 364
as cause of the Son and Holy
Spirit 557-558
scriptural names of 494
“self-begotten” 575
without passion 461, 464, 465, 477
feasting 423

final conflagration 147, 258, 261
final restoration of all things 261
firmament = body of the archons 254,
256, 261, 274

688

INDEX

First Man (Manichaean) 253, 254, 259,
271, 272, 273, 274

first principles 55, 88, 89, 90, 95, 215, 224,
225, 235, 241, 242, 287, 288, 461, 663, 665,
666

foods, abstinence from 14, 71, 139, 217,

319. 323. 426, 680

fortieth day before Easter 679-680
free will 117, 119, 135, 162, 168, 189, 191,

270, 297, 304, 340, 344, 354, 378, 388, 652

Gelasius, consecrated by Cyril of
Jerusalem 482
Gemellinus, Arian bishop 482
generacy of the Son (Aetius’ term) 338,
523. 524. 525. 526, 527. 537. 538, 542, 543.
546, 547. 549. 554. 555. 556. 563, 565,

567, 568, 569, 572, 573, 574, 575
George, Arian bishop of Alexandria 332,
412, 468, 471, 472, 483, 511, 512
George, bishop of Laodicea 249, 433, 437,
443. 444. 445. 468, 473, 482
gifts of grace 7, 8, 17, 68
glorification/spiritualization of the risen
Christ 395, 405, 562, 588, 675-676
Gnostics 73, 100, 617
God

allegedly good but not just 250
God of the Law 201, 282, 298, 310, 358,

387

God of this world (Manichaean term)
293. 295. 296, 297

ingenerate God 522, 523, 528, 530-532,
538, 540, 545. 553. 568, 575
pagan view 71, 325, 353, 418, 511, 544,
552, 572, 576, 584, 646
two Gods 217, 224, 252, 380, 435, 461
unbegotten 400, 401
Gospel (Manichaean) 233
Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew
30

Gospel narrative harmonized 29-35
Gratian, emperor 8, 248

Hadrian, emperor 6, 247
harrowing of hades/preaching in hades
588, 606, 613

Hegesias of Cyrene 665
hells 25, 259
Heraclitus of Ephesus 665
Hermeias, Manichaean missionary 232,
239, 261

Hermogenes 32

Herod 34, 35, 36, 44, 52, 53, 54, 294, 623,
663

heteroousion 135, 466
Hexapla 136, 219
Hieracas 82, 215, 324, 338
biography 316
Hieracites 215
Holy Spirit

alleged to be Melchizedek 2, 78, 82,
318, 322

allegedly a creature of the Son 346,
382, 383, 480, 482, 483, 514, 600, 619
allegedly different from God’s essence
74, 480, 482

allegedly greater than Christ 428

an entity 95

as creator 346, 486, 488

divinity 380, 381, 383

divinity denied 346, 382, 383, 480, 482,

483, 514

excerpt from Ancoratus on 484-499
in female form 72
meanings of the term 489-499
as object of worship 493-494, 499
personality 493-503
scriptural names 484
speaker in both Testaments 309
speaker in scriptures 86
subsistence of 94, 95, 96, 226
uncreated 377
uniqueness 498, 499
Holy Week 422, 424, 506
homoeousion 411, 444, 460, 470, 480, 481,
522, 535

homoousion 400, 401, 411, 443, 444, 446,
460, 468, 469, 470, 473, 480, 481, 518,

522, 523, 535, 544, 545, 546, 549, 586
Hosius, bishop of Cordova 460
hospitality 2, 85, 101, 235, 288, 336, 504,
512, 681

human mind in Jesus replaced by Christ
himself 608-612
human mind not a entity 611-612
human nature of Christ

complete 56, 212, 355, 601-606, 636,

674

incomplete 582, 599-600, 601
only apparent 215, 276
reality 338, 374-375, 377~378, 388-389,
391-393, 394, 405, 602-603, 612, 672
sinless 389, 442, 595, 612, 673
Hymenaeus, bishop of Jerusalem 248
Hypatian, bishop 468, 471

INDEX

689

Hypatius, Epiphanius’ copyist 482, 483,
681

hypostasis 463, 585

idolatry 51, 120, 184, 191, 211, 230, 291, 314,
357. 374. 521. 574. 635, 637, 640, 681
Iexai 71

image = likeness of a son to a father
462

image of God

= divinity of the Son 225, 438,

440-441, 454, 476
allegedly = the body 414, 416, 417
allegedly = the soul 416
allegedly = virtue 417
allegedly conferred by baptism 417,
440

allegedly lost by Adam 138, 415-416
and long hair on men 279, 651
Man made in 159, 245, 411, 414, 415,

512

Son is the image of God 437, 453, 476
Immanuel 591, 592, 596, 642
immortality 158-160, 161, 163, 164, 165,

166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 184, 192,
197. 205, 305, 346, 378, 459, 464, 590, 591,
596, 625, 665, 666, 667
impassibility

of Christ 55, 363, 457, 487
of Christ’s divine nature 58, 89, 149,
353. 365. 369, 370, 377. 395. 559, 597,
609-610, 674, 675, 676
of a creator with respect to its creature
447

of devil 160

of divine Word 57, 365, 369, 487, 559,
588, 589

of God 93, 354, 355, 364, 384, 387, 396,
447, 548, 553, 559-560, 610
of the Holy Spirit 560
of the Trinity 559, 573
impurity. See purity/impurity
Incarnation of Christ 25, 31, 42, 46, 49,

5h 52, 53, 55, 57, 60, 61, 75, 76, 80, 106,
127, 128, 198, 215, 218, 223, 226, 257, 318,
322, 350, 35i. 352, 353, 363. 364, 365. 375,
381, 384, 391, 393, 394, 402, 430, 432, 442,
446, 559, 581, 586, 590, 596, 597, 600,

601, 602, 603, 608, 609, 610, 618, 620, 621,
623, 627, 633, 634, 636, 654, 658, 659,
673, 674, 679

Christ allegedly appears grown in the
world 33, 34

includes human frailties 338, 374-375,
377-378, 388-389, 391-393, 394, 405,
602-603, 612, 672
willingly undergone 19
ingeneracy. See also generacy of the Son
(Aetius’ term)

Father termed ingenerate 338, 537,

545, 546, 563, 565, 567, 573, 574, 575
and generacy contrasted 522-527, 547,
555, 556, 569

implies unlikeness of essence 523, 537,
542, 543, 549, 554, 565, 572
once applied loosely to the Son as a
synonym for "uncreated” 538
propriety of the terms 536, 537
Son termed generate 537, 545, 554
intemperance 5, 132, 184, 185, 187
Isaiah 9, 19, 31, 41, 44, 56, 61, 62, 76, 77,

89, 97, 140, 170, 213, 309, 317, 319, 357,

376, 378, 417, 418, 492, 517, 587, 607, 642,
654, 672

James the Just 45, 246, 621, 622, 623, 626,
627, 639

Jephthah’s daughter 79, 635
Jerusalem

episcopal succession 246-247
heavenly Jerusalem 20,302
Jesus = tree of knowledge 279
Jews 50, 53, 54, 58, 59, 84, 120, 217, 218,
223, 268, 288, 289, 290, 294, 298, 358,

359, 363, 387, 39i, 407, 409, 420, 422, 423,
424, 426, 431, 432, 517, 520, 551, 618, 672
John (Melitian) 328
John the Evangelist 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
48, 49, 50, 64, 352
Joseph

alleged relations with Mary 581, 613,
616, 620-621, 628, 632-633
and birth of Jesus 30,52
death 623

encouraged virginity 627, 645
first marriage and children 36, 246,
620-621, 622, 626

Jesus’ supposed father 36, 37, 42, 56,
621

Mary betrothed to 30, 366
Mary entrusted to 620, 624
not having relations with Mary 30, 36,
621, 626, 628, 632-633
parentage 351, 620
in the position of father to Jesus 621
Jovian, emperor 248, 332

6go

INDEX

Judaea, annexation to the Romans 53, 54
Julian the Apostate 248, 332, 511, 580
Julius, bishop of Rome 331, 433, 434
letter from Marcellus 434-436

key of David 80, 139
knowledge, intellectual and experiential
373, 374

laity 107, no, 113, 342, 412, 426, 473, 650,
671, 679

lamplighting prayers 647, 680
Law 2, 25, 26, 33, 34, 39, 60, 63, 64, 65,

74, 77, 89, 114, 120, 122, 179, 180, 181, 182,
187, 188, 201, 229, 232, 267, 281, 282, 290,
291, 296, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 317, 332,

352, 358, 364, 384, 387, 400, 401, 412, 414,
423, 424, 462, 474, 475, 484, 486, 488,
498, 506, 507, 508, 519, 577, 584, 585, 613,
614, 615, 617, 620, 634, 651, 652, 672, 673,
676, 679, 681
Law = death 300, 307
laws, several within human being
193-194
Leonidas 134

Leontius (Arian) 332, 336, 428
Leucippus 664

Leucius, friend of John the evangelist 32
Liberius, bishop of Rome 505
Licinius, emperor 248
light (Manichaean) 228, 229, 230, 233,

235, 236, 240, 241, 244, 252-256, 290-291,
357

likeness of the Son to the Father 441,

447, 449, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460,

461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 469,

470-471, 512, 513, 517, 532, 543
Living Father (Manichaean) 254, 275, 370
Living Spirit (Manichaean) 253, 254, 255,
256, 261, 273, 274
creation of the luminaries 254
creation of the world 254, 274
crucifixion of the archons 256, 261,

274

Longinus, bishop of Ascalon 55, 336
Lucian 513

Lucius, Arian bishop of Alexandria 333,
339

Lucius of Nicomedia 336
Luke the evangelist 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 61, 63, 64

luminaries 172, 173, 237, 244, 254, 255,
258, 260, 275, 276, 281, 315, 425, 458, 542,
55i

lunar year

intercalation 425
Jewish computation 59, 425
Lupician, persecutes Massalians 647

Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem 336, 337
Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople
468, 472

Macrinus, bishop of Jamnia 336
magi 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, 315, 596, 606, 623,
662, 663, 670
Magusaeans 670
Man

composed of soul and body 159, 166,
173, 275, 589, 603-604
in the image of First Man (Manichean)
253, 254, 259, 271, 272, 273, 274
in the image of God 159, 245, 411, 414,

415, 512

Mani 215, 338, 359, 589, 594, 603, 648
Manichaean book in 22 sections 240
Marcellus 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238,

252, 287, 305

Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra 411, 444, 458
Marcion 6, 224, 594
Marcionites 23, 135, 212, 389, 603, 617
Mark, bishop of Arethusa 467
Mark the evangelist 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45,
48, 61
marriage

blessed by Jesus 14, 63
continence in 14, 118, 119
permitted by church 4, 14, 15, 106-107,
118-120, 133, 321-322
permitted by sects 665
priests and holy 106-107, 113, 628
rejected or forbidden by sects 1, 4, 5,
14, 15, 116-117, 131, 197, 215, 317, 652
second marriage 2, 15, 106, 108, 109,
no, 678

second marriage allowed to laity 107,

113

versus single life 14, 678
Marthana, descendant of Elxai 1, 71
Marthus 1

martyrdom 2, 88, 134, 135, 178, 186, 247,
288, 324-326, 336, 511, 627
of Peter of Alexandria 324-326, 335
Martyrians 581

INDEX

6gi

Mary

alleged relations with Joseph 581, 613,
616, 620-621, 628, 632-633
allegedly not the mother of Christ 234
betrothed to Joseph 30, 366
birth 642, 643

conception of Christ 75, 351, 478, 628,
642

contrasted with Eve 630-631
did not live with John 623-624
end of her life 624, 635
entrusted to Joseph 620
mother of the living 630
not a priest 638-639
not be be worshiped 635, 640-641
not having relations with Joseph 30,
36, 621, 626, 628, 632-633
offerings to /in the name of 581, 635
originator of sacred virginity 637
parents of 630, 641
a prophetess 628-629
relationship to Elizabeth 45, 126, 367,
487, 626, 630

virgin birth of Christ 30, 31, 73, 269,
587-588, 620-621, 630, 673
Massalians 581, 661
Matter 236, 245, 253, 254, 275
Epiphanius’ definition 245-246
its creation of growing things
(Manichaean) 254, 275
its creation of man (Manichaean) 254
Matthew the evangelist 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 37, 4i, 45, 47, 48, 61
Maximian, emperor 104, 248, 324, 334,
514

Maximon, bishop of Jerusalem 469
meat, abstention from 1, 4, 14, 71, 100,

139, 236, 319, 323, 626, 627, 664, 680
Melchizedek 2, 78, 82, 318, 322, 638
Melchizedekians 2, 318, 617
Melissus 664

Melitians 215, 334, 340, 341, 511
Melitus, bishop of Antioch 468, 472, 473,
480

inaugural sermon 443, 473-479
Melitus, founder of Melitians 333, 335,
336, 34i

Menophilus, Arian 514
Merinthians 351, 367
Methodius 143, 150, 168, 179, 203, 207
Dialogue on Resurrection 143-195
Metrodorus 664

millennium 614-615
miracles of Jesus in childhood 46
monks 215, 651, 678-681
monogamy 14, 122
Montanists, location 1, 22, 23, 25
Montanus 1

moon (in Manichaean teaching) 237,

250, 251, 255, 259, 260, 272, 275, 277, 280,
294, 309, 315

Moses 2, 12, 13, 15, 25, 39, 67, 74-75, 79,

91, 92, 114, 124, 145, 149, 175, 186, 202, 206,
207, 217, 218, 229, 259, 260, 268, 280, 282,
291, 300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 309, 317, 35h
382, 390, 391, 398, 400, 417, 458, 486, 487,
498, 507, 594, 596, 615, 618, 628, 635,

638, 649, 652, 654, 672
Mother of all 251
Mother of Life 251, 253, 260, 271
Mother of Light 289
Mt. Tabor 47
mystery cults 668-671

nakedness in worship 1, 69-70
Nativity of Christ, date 56
natures of Christ

alleged to be curtailed in Christ 584, 588
alleged to be only apparent 215, 276
alleged to lack a mind 581, 582, 599,
601, 602, 603, 604, 605
human nature alleged complete 56,
212, 355, 601-606, 636, 674
human nature alleged incomplete 582,
599-600, 601

impassible 58, 89, 149, 353, 365, 369,
370, 377, 395, 559, 597, 609-610, 674,
675, 676

reality of 338, 374-375, 377~378,
388-389, 391-393, 394, 405, 602-603,
612, 672

sinlessness 389, 442, 595, 612, 673
Navatus 2, 104, 216, 433
nazirites 621, 626, 627, 651
Nazoraeans 71, 352

Nicaea, Council of 104, 106, 327, 434, 583
Creed 421, 441, 469, 479, 503, 505, 585,
586, 600

deposes Arius 340, 584
Nicene Creed 421, 441, 469, 479, 503, 505,
585, 586, 600

Noah 4, 5, 27, 37, 38, 80, 82, 83, 132, 291,
310, 311, 352, 382, 415, 417, 54L 646, 658
allotment of the world 310-311

692

INDEX

Noetians 2, 123
Noetus 2, 216, 217
Numerian, emperor 248

Offspring (favored Arian term for the Son,
also used by Ephanius) 268, 398, 431,
448, 449, 475, 476, 481, 518, 522, 523,

524, 525, 526, 527, 532, 533, 535, 537, 538,
539, 540, 542, 543, 547, 548, 549, 550,

554, 555, 557, 560, 561, 568, 57°, 579 573,
574, 575
Onan 131, 206

Ordinance of the Apostles 422, 423, 424,
426, 509

Origen 2, 3, 34, 82, 216, 249, 317, 318, 5r3
Origenists 2, 3

originated God (allegedly Origenist term)
141

pagan practices forbidden by Church 14,

15, 113, 519, 681
Panaetius of Rhodes 667
Pancratius, bishop 47r
Paphnutius, Melitian anchorite 328
Paraclete 7, 13, 16, 17, 392, 462, 471, 494
as Manichaean term 239, 240, 245,

246, 259, 285, 286

Paradise r, 3, 16, 70, 138, 153, r63, 164, 173,
^7-178, 179, r8r, r87, 3r8, 484, 63r
in Manichaean sense 258, 266, 278,
279, 288

Parmenides 664

Paschal Feast 421, 422, 423, 424, 426
Passover (= Easter unless otherwise noted)
allegedly not to be celebrated by
Christians 506
catholic dating 24-25
celebration limited to one day per year
1, 24

celebration on the Jewish date 411,
420-42r

Jewish eaten on the wrong day in Jesus’
time 58, 59

number of Jewish Passovers in the
Fourth Gospel 63, 64
scriptural justification 508, 509
variations in dating 25, 26
Patripassianism 91-94, 217, 344, 355, 364
Patrophilus, Arian bishop of
Scythopolis 469

Paul 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 37, 65, 79, 89, 90, 95,
97, 103, 121, 145, 146, 168, 170, 179, 180, 181,
182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194,
206, 286, 289, 306, 313, 314, 318, 322, 449,

450, 45i, 452, 463, 490, 49i, 497, 502,

508, 509, 588, 590, 59i, 592, 596, 605,

608, 611, 612, 629, 634, 639, 646, 648,

650, 651, 680

Paul the Samosatian 215, 411, 428, 429,
430, 442, 458
Paulianists 215

Paulinus, bishop of Antioch 337, 582,

599, 600

confession of faith 599-600
Peleus 325

penance 105, 106, 110, 122, 307, 325, 328,
33i, 658

after lapse under persecution 110, 115,

325, 328

Pentecost 50, 64, 467, 508-509, 679
Pepuza 1, 20, 22, 512
Pepuzians 1, 20
Persaeus 667

pestilence sent by chief archons 250,

256, 277

Peter, bishop of Alexandria 324, 325, 326,
333, 335

Peter the apostle 12, 13, 18, 32, 39, 40, 41,
42, 44, 45, 58, 62, 99, 104, 105, 110, 111, 145,
149, 183, 207, 246, 290, 308, 324, 325, 326,
333, 335, 368, 369, 408, 471, 493, 536, 550,
588, 596, 609, 624, 639
Phaedo 186

Phaenaretes the midwife 663
Pherecydes 664
Philip, bishop of Scythopolis 482
Philip the evangelist 22, 29, 39, 40, 43,

44, 47, 62, 100, 286, 469, 629, 639
Philosabbatius 34
philosophies 663, 667, 668
Philumen, consecrated by Cyril of
Jerusalem 482

Photinus 411, 441, 442, 443, 444, 600
Phrygians in Thyatira 66
Pillar of Light/Glory 255,289
Plato 186, 279, 665
Pneumatomachi 411, 444
Polycarp of Smyrna 421
Porphyry 34

Porter (Manichaean) 249, 250, 254, 255,
256, 260, 275, 282
Posidonius of Apamaea 667
possessions

renunciation of 116, 647, 648
righteous ownership 118, 119, 308
Potamon, bishop of Heracleopolis 330
Praxiphanes of Rhodes 666
prayer at night hours 680, 681

INDEX

693

preaching

of apostles 205, 457, 650

of Jesus 46, 47, 48, 51, 57, 60, 61, 62,

63, 276
priesthood

abolition of 81

apostles as preachers 650

celibacy of 628

of Christ 364, 365, 366

circumcised priesthood 80

deaconesses 639, 640, 679

earn their living 650

living in luxury and wantonness 413

Mary not allowed 638-639

ordained by Melitius 326, 327

priestesses 640

standards of behavior 106-107, 110,

650, 678

suppored by laity 650
women as 1, 22, 639
Prince of this world (Manichaean) 293
Priscilla 1, 6, 7, 22, 66, 637
Priscillianists (Quintillianists) 1, 20, 21,

privations (as philosophical term) 524,
525, 526, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 561,

562

Probus, emperor 216, 227, 246, 248, 305
procession of the Holy Spirit 513
Proclus, Origenist teacher 148, 150
Prodicus 665

prophecy, rational 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19
prophets deceived 259, 260
Protagoras 664
Proverbs 8:22

Epiphanius’ discussion 341, 343, 348,
350, 352, 353

interpretation 451, 456, 465, 476
psilanthropism 2, 27, 28, 32, 45, 73,

77-78. 93, 216, 223, 351, 361, 375, 390
Purists (Cathari) 2, 116
purity/impurity 14, 28, 110, 131, 183, 197,
211, 258, 282, 288, 413, 417, 426, 627, 634,
635. 651, 652
Pyrrho of Elis 665
Pythagoras of Samos 664

quaternity instead of Trinity (Apolinarian
accusation of catholic doctrine) 585,
590. 59i

queens, sixty 653, 654, 656, 657, 658, 659,
660, 661, 663

Quintillianists (Priscillianists) 1, 20, 21, 26
Qunitilla 1, 66, 637

rain as sweat/effluent of archons/ chief
archon 256, 262
readers, order of 678
rebaptism 412, 579, 580, 671
rebirth as punishment for soul 236, 237,
250, 257

redemption 57, 170, 486, 491, 591. See also
atonement

reed mattresses used by Manichaeans

239

renunciation 116, U7, 119, 412, 506, 647, 648
renunciation of the world 505
repentance

after baptism 109, 112, 113

after lapse under persecution no, 115,

325. 328

none after death 112
rescue of the entrapped soul
(Manichaean) 236
resurrection of Body of Christ 58, 59,

370, 387. 394, 601, 676
= the cheating of Hades 301, 378, 393,
394, 606

resurrection of the dead 16, 25, 26, 77,
263, 265, 313, 315, 394, 613, 614, 676
affirmed by sects 4, 6, 22, 24, 174
apparent 589

defended 4, 89, 138, 195-214, 321
denied by sects 3, 88, 138, 173, 215,

317, 318

includes resurrection of the flesh 24,
175, 187, 317, 318, 321, 435
Origen’s version 142-146, 148-150, 163,
167, 168, 170, 172-175, 187
Origen’s version 138
as resurrection of the soul only 173,
174, 215, 317, 318, 321, 605
spiritual resurrection 255, 316
Rhinocorura 310

Right Hand (Manichaean term) 233, 253,

273, 274

Rome, Council of 583

roots, two (Manichaean) 229, 308

Sabaoth 259, 492

Sabbath 64, 217, 309, 310, 311, 312, 424,
499, 679, 680, 681
Sabellianism 599

Sabellius 216, 226, 338, 345, 397, 400, 411,
433, 44i, 518, 600

saints 7, 8, 15, 16, 65, 67, 174, 177, 205, 212,
233, 246, 272, 284, 287, 288, 317, 465, 485,
487, 489, 490, 494, 498, 500, 510, 529,

539, 592, 594, 621, 633, 635, 636, 641, 671

694

INDEX

salvation 30, 59, 60, 61, 74, 75, 104, 105,
109, 111, 113, 141, 192, 202, 212, 233, 234,
255. 290, 352, 354, 357, 358, 363, 389,

390, 39i, 393, 488, 501, 551, 589, 597, 598,
602, 610, 612, 674, 677, 679
alleged not available anciently
(Manichaean doctrine) 305
alleged not available to children 318
of spirit without body 313
Samaritans 49, 57, 82, 83, 84, 646, 654
Samosatians 217, 225
Sampsaeans 1

Sardica, Council of, 343 a.d. 223, 428,
444, 445

Sarmatas 334, 339
Satan, worship of 647
Satanists 581
Saturnalia 51

Secundus, bishop of Pentapolis 335, 339
Seleucia, Council of, 359 a,d. 443, 469,
482, 489

Synodical Letter of 470-472
Semi-Arians 411, 483
Serapion of Thmuis, refutation of Mani
249

Sethians 100, 617

sexual relations, abstinence from 103,

107, 652, 678

Shechem (Neapolis) 635, 646
Shem 82, 83, 84, 310, 311
Silvanus, Audian bishop in Gothia 427,
468

Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus 472
sin

after baptism 109, 112, 113
atonement 486, 587, 632
redemption 57, 170, 486, 491, 591
responsibility for 153, 162, 176, 209, 211,
273, 292, 314, 378, 504, 635
sinful thoughts 133, 165, 189, 190, 191, 192,
193, 545, 617
single life 14, 678

Sirmium, Council of, first 351 a.d. 428,
429, 430, 43L 432, 444, 445, 460
skin tunics

= body 70, 138, 152, 153
= mortality 158, 163, 164
miraculously made 202
Socrates 186, 663
Son. See also begetting of the Son;
Offspring (favored Arian term for the
Son, also used by Ephanius)
alleged creaturehood 72, 139, 142, 338,
34i, 344-345, 346, 362, 363, 364, 382,

383, 411, 412, 434, 443, 446-447, 455,
456, 457, 459, 465, 468, 469, 479, 482,
504, 514, 518-519, 529, 53i, 586, 618
allegedly inferior to the Father 50, 353,
374, 379, 466

allegedly not the Word 218, 59c
allegedly once non-existent 337, 338,
434, 442, 477

allegedly unlike the Father 466
almighty 567
appeared in Adam 72
creates the twelve water jars 255, 275,
276

creator 346, 382, 383, 480, 482, 483,

514, 600, 619

equality with the Father 517
eternity 568-569

generacy of the Son (Aetius’ term) 338,
523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 537, 538, 542,

543, 546, 547, 549, 554, 555, 556, 563,
565, 567, 568, 569, 572, 573, 574, 575

image of God 437, 453, 476
immutable 338, 560
King 438, 439

likeness of the Son to the Father 44c,
447, 449, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460,
461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 469,
470-47L 512, 513, 5H, 517, 532, 543
meaning of the term “Son of God”
(Anomoean) 447-449, 453, 486
only-begotten 94, 127, 137, i4r, 159, 217,
219, 220, 22r— 222, 223, 225, 234, 265,
266, 276, 322-323, 344, 345, 346, 347,
348, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 361, 363,
370, 373-374, 375, 378, 380, 387, 391,
397, 402, 406, 418, 420, 429, 435, 437,
438, 439, 442, 445, 449, 450, 455, 457,
460, 476-477, 494-495, 500, 513, 516,

544, 548, 559-565, 567-570, 633
preexistence 483

scriptural names for 494
termed generate 537, 545, 554
uncreated 560
Son-Father 2, 338, 345, 457
Son of Man 39, 77, 8r, 98-99, 128, 144,

293, 312, 362, 364, 365, 383, 387, 406,

408, 417, 429, 454, 510, 585, 617
Sonship of the Son 379, 439, 448, 450,
454, 459, 465, 481, 523, 538
denied 343-344, 454-456, 457
Soul

allegedly = image of God 416
as armor of the good God/First Man
251, 252

INDEX

695

as bait for archons 270
eaten by archons 253, 257, 259, 270,
271, 304

human body as prison of the
fallen 156, 157, 158, 159
immortality 169, 174, 175
luminous (Manichaean) 250
possessed by the Son’s human nature

673

preexistence of 137
rebirth as punishment for 236, 237,
250, 257

resurrection of the soul only 173, 174,

215. 317. 318, 321, 605
the same in all 145
taken and cleansed by sun’s rays 255
transmigration 279
Spirit, meanings of the term 489-499
Spirithood of the Spirit 125, 130, 355
denied 217

star of Bethlehem 31, 34, 35, 52
stars 275-276
Stephen, Arian 332
Strato of Lampsacus 666
streams, miraculous 62
sufferings of Christ 585, 675
sun and moon as ships 237, 250
sun takes load of souls from moon 237,
250, 255

Sunday a day of enjoyment 679
Synod of Paris 360 a.d. 583
Synodical Letter of Seleucia 470-472
Syntagmation of Aetius the
Anomoean 511, 522-528

Tacitus, emperor 248
Tascodrugians 1, 6, 20
Tatian 1, 3, 4, 6, 116
tautoousion 518
Temporists 522, 528
Temptation of Jesus 39, 42-43, 44, 45, 46,
47. 48, 50, 57. 62, 64, 675
testament of death (Manichean) 300-301
Testaments not from one Teacher 301
Thales of Miletus 663
Thecla 605, 629, 641
Theodoras 665
Theodotians 2
Theodotus of Byzantium 2, 73
Theonas, Melitian bishop of
Alexandria 239, 334, 339, 340
Theophrastus of Ephesus 666
Thermutis, Pharaoh's daughter 635
Third Elder (Manichaean) 260

Thomas, Manichaean missionary 232,
239, 261

Thomas the apostle 3, 116, i4g, 198, 395,
453. 588, 591. 639, 675
Thrace 311, 637

Tiberius, emperor 32, 45, 55, 276, 305,

623

Titus of Bostra, refutation of Mani 226,
242, 249

tradition 121, 122
transcendence

of God 357, 398, 522, 527, 531, 532, 534,
552, 555. 568, 571
of the Holy Spirit 622
of the Son/Christ 466, 476, 532, 534,
612

of the Trinity 533, 571
transfiguation of Christ 145, 149, 408, 596
translators, order of 679
Treasury (Manichaean book) 229, 240
Trees, good and evil (in Manichaean
thought) 278-279
Trinity

affirmed hy sects 6-7, 24, 312, 405
Alexander of Alexandria’s version
333-334

allegedly replaced by a quatemity 585,
590, 591

Arian version 115, 125, 126, 129, 338,

400, 409, 433, 481, 483, 503, 599, 636,
4779

confusion of Persons 2, 92, 93, 123, 216,
218, 221, 222

cooperation of Persons 74, 361, 429,
493, 495. 543. 561, 569, 599
creator 557-558

distinction of Persons 93-95, 129, 346,
357, 461, 488, 671

equality of the Persons 358, 389-390,
513, 516, 518, 534, 561, 585, 599
erroneous separation of the
Persons 75, 128, 412, 619
eternity 520, 543, 561, 565, 568, 573,

574

gave Moses the Law 672
indivisible 127, 416, 571
ingenerate/uncreated 559, 561, 564,
566, 567, 568, 570, 571, 572, 574
perfection of the Persons 95, 125, 225,
361, 37i, 381, 384, 389, 409, 433, 500,
502, 503, 516, 518, 543. 545, 555. 560,
565, 568, 572, 599, 671, 676
Persons seen by the prophets 672
preserver of created things 568

6g6

INDEX

receives no addition 5gi, 671
sent the prophets 672
subsistence of the Persons 222, 223,
226, 461, 599

transcendence 550, 555
Trinity in unity (various statement of the
catholic doctrine) 94-95, 100, 124-125,
316, 347, 358, 361, 380, 381, 389, 404, 409,
413, 498, 503, 545, 57i, 573, 671, 675
Trypho, Mani’s opponent in debate

238-239

Turbo, disciple of Mani 233, 234, 235,

237, 252

narrative of 252-261
Twelve steersmen 260
two first principles (Manichaean) 215,
224-225, 235, 242, 287, 288

Uncreated, God the 579
undertakers, order of 679
unlikeness of the Son to the Father. See
likeness of the Son to the Father
Upper Scythia 637
Uranius, Audian bishop in Gothia 427
Uranius, bishop of Tyre 468, 471
Ursaces, Arian bishop in Pannonia 331

Valens, Arian bishop in Pannonia 331,
467, 468, 584

Valens, emperor 8, 247, 248, 333, 342, 362
Valentinian, emperor 8, 248
Valentinians 55, 88, 135
Valentinus, Gnostic teacher 2, 60, 338,
438, 594
Vales 100
Valesians 2

Victor, bishop of Rome 421
vigils 649, 679, 680
virgin birth of Christ 30, 31, 73, 269,
587-588, 620-621, 630, 673
Virgin of Light 256, 260
virgin prophetesses in sects 22
virginity 14, 105, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 133,
321, 322, 323, 426, 678
virginity of James, John and James the
Just 624, 626, 627

Vitalius, bishop of Antioch 599, 600, 601

Walls (Manichaean) 309, 310, 311
water

as eucharistic element 4, 5, 43, 62,

63, 116

venerated 72

Wednesday, Friday and Saturday services

679

widows and widowhood 14, 15, 107, 108,
120, 121, 215, 318, 640, 678
wine forbidden by sects 4, 5
winter solstice 51

Wisdom 160, 170, 173, 186, 218, 320, 348,
350, 450-452, 453, 455, 467, 476, 607
in Prov. 8:22 = Christ’s human nature
348

women

clergy 1, 22, 637, 638, 639, 640, 643,

644

and men not to associate 652
Word of God 82, 362, 429, 435, 442, 453,
588

allegedly not the Son 429, 434, 585
allegedly transformed into flesh 220,
581, 584, 585, 587-593, 600, 603-604,
607, 610, 611

equated with a human word 217, 218,
219

equated with God’s reason 431
eternal 1, 28

subsistence 94, 95, 217, 218, 219, 220,
222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 338, 350, 384,
438, 442, 447, 45L 458, 461, 463, 464,
467, 476, 488, 489, 500, 531, 532, 535,
540, 546, 552, 599, 610
work, abstention from 277-278, 648, 681

Xenophanes 664

Zeno, bishop of Tyre 336,664

Zeno, founder of the Stoics 279, 666, 667

Zeno of Elea 664

Zeno the Stoic 666-667

zodiac 51, 237

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Epiphanius Panarion Bks II & III"

See other formats